Advertisement

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 482–487 | Cite as

New grading and scoring for anal incontinence

Evaluation of 335 patients
  • M. Pescatori
  • G. Anastasio
  • C. Bottini
  • A. Mentasti
Original Contributions

Abstract

A grading system of anal incontinence (AI) is described that takes into account both degree and frequency of symptoms. A, B, and C indicate AI for flatus/mucus, liquid stool, and solid stool, respectively; 1, 2, and 3 indicate occasional, weekly, and daily AI. A scoring system, ranging from 0 (continence) to 6 (severe AI,i.e.,daily AI for solid stool or C3) also is reported. Three hundred thirty-five patients have been evaluated by this method in our institution: 30 percent had severe AI, graded as C3; only 9 percent had mild symptoms graded as A. Both males and females could not control diarrhea (Grade B) in 44 percent of cases. Nearly half of the 110 patients who underwent surgery had a C3 incontinence before treatment. Positive results were achieved in 75 percent of cases after surgery:e.g.,AI score significantly improved from 4.2±1.6 to 1.5±1.9 (P<0.001) in those with AI and rectal prolapse. Most of the failures were the patients with idiopathic C3 incontinence. In conclusion, this grading and scoring system allowed a satisfactory assessment of patients' AI before and after treatment. It may also be used to achieve an objective comparison between different series.

Key words

Anal incontinence Grading Score 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pescatori M, Mattana C, and the Italian Registry of ileoanal reservoir. Factors affecting anal continence after restorative proctocolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis 1990;5:213–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keighley MR, Fielding WL. Management of faecal incontinence and results of surgical treatment. Br J Surg 1983;70:463–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Womack NR, Morrison JF, Williams NS. Prospective study of the effects of postanal repair in neurogenic fecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1988;75:48–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kelly JH. Cineradiography in anorectal malformation. J Pediatr Surg 1968;4:538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parks AG. Anorectal incontinence. J R Soc Med 1975;68:21–30.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lane RN. Clinical application of anorectal physiology. Proc Soc Med 1975;68:28–30.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rudd WW. The transanal anastomosis: a sphincter-saving operation with improved continence. Dis Colon Rectum 1979;22:102–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holschneider AM. Treatment and functional results of anorectal continence in children with imperforated anus. Acta Chir Belg 1983;3:191–204.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corman M. Gracilis muscle transposition for anal incontinence. Late results. Br J Surg 1985;72:S21–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hiltunen KM, Matikainen M, Auvinen O, Hietanen P. Clinical and manometric evaluation of anal sphincter function in incontinent patients. Am J Surg 1986;151:489–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broden G, Dolk A, Holmstroem B. Recovery of the internal anal sphincter following rectopexy: a possible explanation for continence improvement. Int J Colorectal Dis 1988;3:23–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rainey JB, Donaldson DN, Thomson JP. Postanal repair: which patients derive most benefit? J R Coll Surg Edinb 1990;35:101–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller R, Bartolo DC, Lock-Edmunds JC, Mortensen NJ. Prospective study of conservative and operative treatment for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1988;75:101–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Pescatori
    • 1
  • G. Anastasio
    • 1
  • C. Bottini
    • 1
  • A. Mentasti
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto di Clinica ChirurgicaUniversita' CattolicaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations