Advertisement

Current Gastroenterology Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp 406–413 | Cite as

Diagnostic testing in fecal incontinence

  • Anjana Kumar
  • Satish S. C. Rao
Article

Abstract

Fecal incontinence is a common problem that disproportionately affects women and the elderly and has a significant impact on the quality of life. Incontinence is often multifactorial. Anorectal manometry, anal endosonography, magnetic resonance imaging, pudendal nerve latency, and electromyography provide morphologic and physiologic assessments of the internal and external anal sphincters, rectal motor and sensory function, rectal compliance, and rectoanal reflexes. This information, in concert, provides clues to the pathophysiology of fecal incontinence and may help to guide medical, surgical, or biofeedback therapy. These tests have also been used to assess the effectiveness of the therapeutic modalities. No data are available on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic testing in fecal incontinence. Newer techniques, including electrophysiologic testing and morphologic imaging of the anorectum, are being pursued.

Keywords

Pelvic Floor Fecal Incontinence Anal Sphincter External Anal Sphincter Internal Anal Sphincter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Rao SSC: Practice guidelines: Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. American College of Gastroenterology, 2003. Am J Gastroenterol, in press. This paper is a comprehensive outline of the current practice guidelines for diagnostic testing and medical management of fecal incontinence, as recommended by the American College of Gastroenterology.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sailer M, Bussen D, Debus ES, et al.: Quality of life in patients with benign anorectal disorders. Br J Surg 1998, 85:1716–1719.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheetham MJ, Malouf AJ, Kamm MA: Fecal incontinence. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2001, 30:115–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD: Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993, 36:77–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, et al.: AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 1999, 116:735–760. A critical review of the various manometric, radiologic, and imaging techniques. Recommendations for evaluation of patients, endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice and Practice Economics Committee, are also provided.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rao SSC, Sun WM: Current techniques of assessing defecation dynamics. Dig Dis 1997, 15(Suppl 1):64–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao SSC, Hatfield R, Leistikow J, et al.: Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy humans. Am J Gastroenterol 1999, 94:773–783.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rao SSC, Azpiroz F, Diamant N, et al.: Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2002, 14:553–559. This paper represents the first effort to establish minimum standards for anorectal manometry testing. It is based on the review of the pertinent literature, its relevance to clinical practice, and the consensus opinion of an international group of experts.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun WM, Donnelly TC, Read NW: Utility of a combined test of anorectal manometry, electromyography and sensation in determining the mechanism of ‘idiopathic’ fecal incontinence. Gut 1992, 33:807–813.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rao SSC, Patel RS: How useful are manometric tests of anorectal function in the management of defecation disorders? Am J Gastroenterol 1997, 92:469–475.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caruana BJ, Wald A, Hinds J, Eidelman B: Anorectal sensory and motor function in neurogenic fecal incontinence: comparison between multiple sclerosis and diabetes mellitus. Gastroenterology 1991, 100:465–470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun W, Donnelly TC: Anorectal function in incontinent patients with cerebrospinal disease. Gastroenterology 1990, 99:1372–1379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salvioli B, Bharucha AE, Rath-Harvey D, et al.: Rectal compliance, capacity, and rectoanal sensation in fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:2158–2168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Felt-Bersma RJ, Sloots CE, Poen AC, et al.: Rectal compliance as a routine measurement: extreme volumes have direct clinical impact and normal volumes exclude rectum as a problem. Dis Colon Rectum 2000, 43:1732–1738. This paper describes a large study of incontinent patients and explores the feasibility of rectal compliance measurement and its utility in assessing anorectal problems.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fox M, Thumshirn M, Menne D, et al.: A simulated stool retention test for the evaluation of anorectal function [abstract]. Z Gastroenterol 2001, 36:716.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liberman H, Faria J, Ternent CA, et al.: A prospective evaluation of the value of anorectal physiology in the management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2001, 44:1567–1574.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Felt-Bersma RJ, Poen AC, Cuesta MA, et al.: Referral for anorectal function evaluation: therapeutic implications and reassurance. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999, 11:289–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA: Prospective assessment of the clinical value of anorectal investigations. Digestion 2000, 61:207–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bartram C: Radiological evaluation of anorectal disorders. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2001, 30:55–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA, Bartram CI: Primary degeneration of the internal anal sphincter as a cause of passive fecal incontinence. Lancet 1997, 349:612–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, et al.: Third degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: risk factors and outcome of primary repair. BMJ 1994, 308:887–889.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, et al.: Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 1993, 329:1905–1911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Engel AF, Kamm MA, Sultan AH, et al.: Anterior anal sphincter repair in patients with obstetric trauma. Br J Surg 1994, 81:1231–1234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Enck P, von Giesen HJ, Schäfer A, et al.: Comparison of anal sonography with conventional needle electromyography in the evaluation of anal sphincter defects. Am J Gastroenterol 1996, 91:2539–2543.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tjandra JJ, Milsom JW, Schroeder T, et al.: Endoluminal ultrasound is preferable to electromyography in mapping anal sphincteric defects. Dis Colon Rectum 1993, 36:689–692.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A, et al.: Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic-floor descent. Eur Radiol 1997, 7:1309–1317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A, et al.: Diagnosing enteroceles using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 2000, 43:205–212. This paper describes magnetic resonance colocystorectography as a promising method, compared with dynamic cystoproctography.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    DeSouza NM, Puni R, Zbar A, et al.: MR imaging of the anal sphincter in multiparous women using an endoanal coil: correlation with in vitro anatomy and appearances in fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996, 167:1465–1471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schafer A, Enck P, Furst G, et al.: Anatomy of the anal sphincters: comparison of anal endosonography to magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 1994, 37:777–781.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Malouf AJ, Williams AB, Halligan S, et al.: Prospective assessment of accuracy of endoanal MR imaging and endosonography in patients with fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000, 175:741–745. This study suggests that anal endosonography and endoanal MRI are equivalent in diagnosing external anal sphincter injury, but that MRI is inferior for diagnosing internal anal sphincter injury.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maier A, Fuchsjager M, Funovics M: Endoanal magnetic resonance tomography in fecal incontinence [in German]. Radiologe 2000, 40:465–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Briel JW, Zimmerman DD, Stoker J, et al.: Relationship between sphincter morphology on endoanal MRI and histopathological aspects of the external anal sphincter. Int J Colorectal Dis 2000, 15:87–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Briel JW, Stoker J, Rociu E, et al.: External anal sphincter atrophy on endoanal magnetic resonance imaging adversely affects continence after sphincteroplasty. Br J Surg 1999, 86:1322–1327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fletcher JG, Busse RF, Riederer SJ, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging of anatomic and dynamic defects of the pelvic floor in defecatory disorders. Am J Gastroentrol 2003, 98:399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beets-Tan RG, Morren GL, Beets GL, et al.: Measurement of anal sphincter muscles: endoanal ultrasound, endoanal MRI or phased array MRI? A study with healthy volunteers. Radiology 2001, 220:81–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Malouf AJ, Halligan S, Willimas AB, et al.: Prospective assessment of interobserver agreement for endoanal MRI in fecal incontinence. Abdom Imaging 2001, 26:76–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kiff ES, Swash M: Slowed conduction in the pudendal nerves in idiopathic (neurogenic) faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1984, 71:614–616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Olsen AL, Rao SSC: Clinical neurophysiology and electrodiagnostic testing of the pelvic floor. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2001, 30:33–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thomas C, Lefaucheur JP, Galula G, et al.: Respective value of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency and anal sphincter electromyography in neurogenic fecal incontinence. Neurophysiol Clin 2002, 32:85–90. These authors found that anal EMG was more closely related to the anal functional status than pudendal nerve terminal motor latency and that it is a useful test in the assessment of neurogenic fecal incontinence.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Voyvodic F, Schloithe AC, Wattchow DA, et al.: Delayed pudendal nerve conduction and endosonographic appearance of the anal sphincter complex. Dis Colon Rectum 2000, 43:1689–1694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Osterberg A, Graf W, Edebol Eeg-Olofsson K, et al.: Results of neurophysiologic evaluation in fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2000, 43:1256–1261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Suilleabhain CB, Horgan AF, McEnroe L, et al.: The relationship of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency to squeeze pressure in patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2001, 44:666–671.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wexner SD, Jorge JM: Colorectal physiological tests: use or abuse of technology? Br J Surg 1994, 160:167–174.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gee AS, Durdey P: Preoperative increase in neuromuscular jitter and outcome following surgery for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1997, 84:1265–1268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gee AS, Jones RS, Durdey P: On-line quantitative analysis of surface electromyography of the pelvic floor in patients with faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 2000, 87:814–818.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Felt-Bersma RJ, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SGM: Anorectal function investigations in incontinent and continent patients: difference and discriminatory value. Dis Colon Rectum 1990, 33:479–486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tjandra JJ, Sharma BR, McKirdy HC, et al.: Anorectal physiological testing in defecatory disorders: a prospective study. Aust N Z J Surg 1994, 64:322–326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ternent CA, Shashidharan M, Blatchford GJ, et al.: Transanal ultrasound and anorectal physiology findings affecting continence after sphincteroplasty. Dis Colon Rectum 1997, 40:462–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tjandra JJ, Han WR, Ooi BS, et al.: Faecal incontinence after lateral internal sphincterotomy is often associated with coexisting occult sphincter defects: a study using endoanal ultrasonography. Aust N Z J Surg 2001, 71:598–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Herman RM, Richter P, Walega P, et al.: Anorectal sphincter function and rectal barostat study in patients following transanal endoscopic microsurgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 2001, 16:370–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schnelle JF, Kapur K, Alessi C, et al.: Does an exercise and incontinence intervention save healthcare costs in a nursing home population? J Am Geriatr Soc 2003, 51:161–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Beer-Gabel M, Teshler M, Barzilai N, et al.: Dynamic transperineal ultrasound in the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders: pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 2002, 45:239–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    ShafikA: Magnetic pudendal neurostimulation: a novel method for measuring pudendal nerve terminal motor latency. Clin Neurophysiol 2001, 112:1049–1052.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Morren GL, Walter S, Lindehammar H, et al.: Evaluation of the sacroanal motor pathway by magnetic and electric stimulation in patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2001, 44:167–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anjana Kumar
    • 1
  • Satish S. C. Rao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology/ HepatologyUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations