Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The bother of anal incontinence and St. Mark’s Incontinence Score

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Patient self-report is important in the assessment of the impact of anal incontinence (AI) on quality of life. This study aimed to (1) determine the correlation between total St. Mark’s Incontinence Score (SMIS) and a single-item visual analogue scale (VAS) for bother from AI, and (2) determine the correlation between individual components of SMIS and VAS.

Methods

This is a retrospective study conducted on a cohort of 516 women seen for symptoms of lower urinary tract and pelvic floor dysfunction between January 2013 and August 2014. If a woman responded “yes” to the question “Do you experience any leakage from the back passage/anus?” they were considered to have AI, and the SMIS was administered. They were also asked “How much are you bothered by these symptoms?” to assess bother from AI by VAS. Statistical analyses were performed using Spearman’s correlation and Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

Eighty-four (16.3 %) women reported AI with a mean SMIS of 11 (SD ± 5.11, range 2–24) and median bother of 5 (VAS 1–10). There was a fair correlation between VAS for the bother from AI and SMIS (Spearman’s r = 0.523, p < 0.001). Fecal urgency, impact on lifestyle, and use of pad/plug were significantly associated with VAS (p = 0.05, p = 0.002 and p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

There is a fair, positive correlation between VAS for bother from AI and SMIS. Patients’ bother from AI is strongly associated with its impact on lifestyle as quantified by individual SMIS components.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bharucha AE, Dunivan G, Goode PS et al (2015) Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and classification of fecal incontinence: state of the science summary for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) workshop. Am J Gastroenterol 110:127–136

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Whitehead WE (2005) Diagnosing and managing fecal incontinence: if you don’t ask, they won’t tell. Gastroenterology 129:6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bharucha AE, Zinsmeister AR, Locke GR et al (2005) Prevalence and burden of fecal incontinence: a population-based study in women. Gastroenterology 129:42–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sung VW, Hampton BS (2009) Epidemiology of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 36:421–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL et al (2008) Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 300:1311–1316

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Goode PS, Burgio KL, Halli AD et al (2005) Prevalence and correlates of fecal incontinence in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:629–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Melville JL, Fan MY, Newton K, Fenner D (2005) Fecal incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:2071–2076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nelson R, Norton N, Cautley E, Furner S (1995) Community-based prevalence of anal incontinence. JAMA 274:559–561

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Varma MG, Brown JS, Creasman JM et al (2006) Fecal incontinence in females older than aged 40 years: who is at risk? Dis Colon Rectum 49:841–851

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Whitehead WE, Borrud L, Goode PS et al (2009) Fecal incontinence in US adults: epidemiology and risk factors. Gastroenterology 137:512–517

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Meschia M, Buonaguidi A, Pifarotti P, Somigliana E, Spennacchio M, Amicarelli F (2002) Prevalence of anal incontinence in women with symptoms of urinary incontinence and genital prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 100:719–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Soligo M, Salvatore S, Milani R et al (2003) Double incontinence in urogynecologic practice: a new insight. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:438–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. de Mello Portella P, Feldner PC Jr, da Conceicao JC, Castro RA, Sartori MG, Girao MJ (2012) Prevalence of and quality of life related to anal incontinence in women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 160:228–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cotterill N, Norton C, Avery KN, Abrams P, Donovan JL (2008) A patient-centered approach to developing a comprehensive symptom and quality of life assessment of anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 51:82–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Johanson JF, Lafferty J (1996) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol 91:33–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Brown HW, Wexner SD, Segall MM, Brezoczky KL, Lukacz ES (2012) Quality of life impact in women with accidental bowel leakage. Int J Clin Pract 66:1109–1116

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Drossman DA, Li Z, Andruzzi E et al (1993) U.S. householder survey of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Prevalence, sociodemography, and health impact. Dig Dis Sci 38:1569–1580

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nyrop KA, Grover M, Palsson OS et al (2012) Likelihood of nursing home referral for fecally incontinent elderly patients is influenced by physician views on nursing home care and outpatient management of fecal incontinence. J Am Med Dir Assoc 13:350–354

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Thekkinkattil DK, Lim M, Finan PJ, Sagar PM, Burke D (2008) Awareness of investigations and treatment of faecal incontinence among the general practitioners: a postal questionnaire survey. Colorectal Dis 10:263–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bliss DZ, Norton C, Vodusek DB (2010) Raising awareness about fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 29:612–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boreham MK, Richter HE, Kenton KS et al (2005) Anal incontinence in women presenting for gynecologic care: prevalence, risk factors, and impact upon quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1637–1642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunivan GC, Heymen S, Palsson OS et al (2010) Fecal incontinence in primary care: prevalence, diagnosis, and health care utilization. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202:493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Maeda Y, Pares D, Norton C, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA (2008) Does the St. Mark’s incontinence score reflect patients’ perceptions? A review of 390 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 51:436–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roos AM, Sultan AH, Thakar R (2009) St. Mark’s incontinence score for assessment of anal incontinence following obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:407–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Burchette RJ, Luber KM, Nager CW, Buckwalter JG (2004) The use of Visual Analog Scale in urogynecologic research: a psychometric evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:165–170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stach-Lempinen B, Kujansuu E, Laippala P, Metsanoja R (2001) Visual analogue scale, urinary incontinence severity score and 15 D-psychometric testing of three different health-related quality-of-life instruments for urinary incontinent women. Scand J Urol Nephrol 35:476–483

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Trutnovsky G, Ulrich D, Rojas RG, Mann K, Aigmueller T, Dietz HP (2014) The “bother” of urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 25:947–951

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ulrich D, Guzman Rojas R, Dietz HP, Mann K, Trutnovsky G (2014) Use of a visual analog scale for evaluation of bother from pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:693–697

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Devesa JM, Vicente R, Abraira V (2013) Visual analogue scales for grading faecal incontinence and quality of life: their relationship with the Jorge–Wexner score and Rockwood scale. Tech Coloproctol 17:67–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Harvie HS, Arya LA, Saks EK, Sammel MD, Schwartz JS, Shea JA (2011) Utility preference score measurement in women with fecal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:72e1-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dietz HP (2004) Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. Part II: three-dimensional or volume imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23:615–625

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Shek KL, Guzman-Rojas R, Dietz HP (2014) Residual defects of the external anal sphincter following primary repair: an observational study using transperineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 44:704–709

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaiser AM, Orangio GR, Zutshi M et al (2014) Current status: new technologies for the treatment of patients with fecal incontinence. Surg Endosc 28:2277–2301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Van Koughnett JA, Wexner SD (2013) Current management of fecal incontinence: choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 19:9216–9230

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Menees SB, Smith TM, Xu X, Chey WD, Saad RJ, Fenner DE (2013) Factors associated with symptom severity in women presenting with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 56:97–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Deutekom M, Terra MP, Dobben AC et al (2005) Impact of faecal incontinence severity on health domains. Colorectal Dis 7:263–269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sansoni J, Hawthorne G, Fleming G, Marosszeky N (2013) The revised faecal incontinence scale: a clinical validation of a new, short measure for assessment and outcomes evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum 56:652–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ness W (2012) Faecal incontinence: causes, assessment and management. Nurs Stand 26:52–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney Medical School Nepean, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, 2750, Australia

    C. Paka, I. K. Atan & H. P. Dietz

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    C. Paka

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    I. K. Atan

Authors
  1. C. Paka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I. K. Atan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. P. Dietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. P. Dietz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

HPD has received unrestricted educational grants from GE Medical in the past. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the local Human Research Ethics Committee (NBMLHD HREC 13/90).

Informed consent

Our Ethics Committee did not require formal consent for this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paka, C., Atan, I.K. & Dietz, H.P. The bother of anal incontinence and St. Mark’s Incontinence Score. Tech Coloproctol 20, 123–128 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1397-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1397-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation