Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 363–371 | Cite as

Prospective evaluation of transanal irrigation for fecal incontinence and constipation

  • T. JuulEmail author
  • P. Christensen
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of transanal irrigation on bowel function and quality of life in a prospective cohort of Danish patients with fecal incontinence or constipation.

Methods

Patients with fecal incontinence or constipation of heterogeneous origin were treated by a specialist nurse at the Anal Physiology Clinic/Department of Surgery at Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. If satisfactory results were not obtained after conservative bowel management, patients were instructed in the use the transanal irrigation procedure and were consecutively recruited for this observational cohort study in the period from March 2010 to September 2013. Patients completed questionnaires regarding bowel function, quality of life and the transanal irrigation procedure at baseline and after 12 months.

Results

A total of 507 were introduced to transanal irrigation. Eighty-three percent were females. The median age was 56 (range 19–86) years. At follow-up, 216 (43%) patients still used transanal irrigation, 174 (34%) reported that they had discontinued the treatment for various reasons, while no response was obtained from the remaining 117 (23%) patients. The main reason for not adhering to the treatment was an unsatisfactory outcome, which was reported by 86 (49.4%) of those who discontinued the treatment. Among patients still using the procedure at follow-up, a statistically significant improvement of bowel function scores (St. Marks/Wexner incontinence score, Wexner constipation score and obstructed defecation syndrome score) was detected: the Wexner incontinence score decreased from 12.4 at baseline to 10.2 at follow-up (p < 0.001); the St. Marks incontinence score decreased from 14.9 to 12.7 (p < 0.001); the Wexner constipation score decreased from 14.3 to 12.4 (p < 0.001); and the obstructed defecation syndrome score also dropped, from 15.1 to 11.8 (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the influence of bowel dysfunction on daily activities and quality of life diminished significantly, while the general satisfaction with bowel function increased significantly (p < 0.001 in all three measures).

Conclusions

Bowel function and quality of life improved in the group of patients adhering to transanal irrigation after 12 months. However, more than one-third of the patients discontinued the treatment within the first year with transanal irrigation. Thus, further studies are needed in order to identify factors predicting success and failure with this treatment and to improve supervision during initiation and follow-up.

Keywords

Transanal irrigation Bowel dysfunction Fecal incontinence Constipation Quality of life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Annette Pedersen, RN, and Birthe Nissen, RN, from the Anal Physiology Clinic, Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, for keeping track of the patients and being in charge of the data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Peter Christensen has served as a consultant and an advisory board member for Coloplast, and as an advisory board member for Wellspect HealthCare.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Macmillan AK et al (2004) The prevalence of fecal incontinence in community-dwelling adults: a systematic review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum 47(8):1341–1349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vazquez Roque M, Bouras EP (2015) Epidemiology and management of chronic constipation in elderly patients. Clin Interv Aging 10:919–930PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benezech A, Bouvier M, Vitton V (2016) Faecal incontinence: current knowledges and perspectives. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol 7(1):59–71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Higgins PD, Johanson JF (2004) Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 99(4):750–759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peppas G et al (2008) Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 8(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brandt LJ et al (2005) Systematic review on the management of chronic constipation in North America. Am J Gastroenterol 100(Suppl 1):S5–S21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belsey J et al (2010) Systematic review: impact of constipation on quality of life in adults and children. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 31(9):938–949PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sommers T et al (2015) Emergency department burden of constipation in the United States from 2006 to 2011. Am J Gastroenterol 110(4):572–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duelund-Jakobsen J et al (2015) Nurse-led clinics can manage faecal incontinence effectively: results from a tertiary referral centre. Colorectal Dis 17(8):710–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen P et al (2009) Long-term outcome and safety of transanal irrigation for constipation and fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 52(2):286–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gosselink MP et al (2005) Long-term follow-up of retrograde colonic irrigation for defaecation disturbances. Colorectal Dis 7(1):65–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vollebregt PF, Elfrink AK, Meijerink WJ, Felt-Bersma RJ (2016) Results of long-term retrograde rectal cleansing in patients with constipation or fecal incontinence. Tech Coloproctol 20(9):633–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crawshaw AP et al (2004) A retrospective evaluation of rectal irrigation in the treatment of disorders of faecal continence. Colorectal Dis 6(3):185–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koch SM et al (2008) Colonic irrigation for defecation disorders after dynamic graciloplasty. Int J Colorectal Dis 23(2):195–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koch SMP et al (2008) Prospective study of colonic irrigation for the treatment of defaecation disorders. Br J Surg 95(10):1273–1279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koch SMP et al (2009) Retrograde colonic irrigation for faecal incontinence after low anterior resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 24(9):1019–1022CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cazemier M, Felt-Bersma RJ, Mulder CJ (2007) Anal plugs and retrograde colonic irrigation are helpful in fecal incontinence or constipation. World J Gastroenterol 13(22):3101–3105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosen H et al (2011) Transanal irrigation improves quality of life in patients with low anterior resection syndrome. Colorectal Dis 13(10):e335–e338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Emmanuel AV et al (2013) Consensus review of best practice of transanal irrigation in adults. Spinal Cord 51(10):732–738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaizey CJ et al (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44(1):77–80CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jorge JMN, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36(1):77–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Altomare DF et al (2008) Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defaecation syndrome. Colorectal Dis 10(1):84–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agachan F et al (1996) A constipation scoring system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Dis Colon Rectum 39(6):681–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Passananti V, Wilton A, Preziosi G, Storrie JB, Emmanuel A (2016) Long-term efficacy and safety of transanal irrigation in multiple sclerosis. Neurogastroenterol Motil 28(9):1349–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Christensen P et al (2006) A randomized, controlled trial of transanal irrigation versus conservative bowel management in spinal cord-injured patients. Gastroenterology 131(3):738–747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Emmanuel A et al (2016) Long-term cost-effectiveness of transanal irrigation in patients with neurogenic bowel dysfunction. PLoS ONE 11(8):e0159394CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bray L, Sanders C (2013) An evidence-based review of the use of transanal irrigation in children and young people with neurogenic bowel. Spinal Cord 51(2):88–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ng J et al (2015) Transanal irrigation for intractable faecal incontinence and constipation: outcomes, quality of life and predicting non-adopters. Pediatr Surg Int 31(8):729–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Christensen P et al (2016) Global audit on bowel perforations related to transanal irrigation. Tech Coloproctol 20(2):109–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marquis P et al (2005) Development and validation of the patient assessment of constipation quality of life questionnaire. Scand J Gastroenterol 40(5):540–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rockwood TH et al (2000) Fecal incontinence quality of life scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43(1):9–16 (discussion 16-7) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical MedicineAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations