Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A prospective evaluation of the value of anorectal physiology in the management of fecal incontinence

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was designed to determine whether anorectal physiology testing significantly altered patient management in the setting of fecal incontinence. METHODS: Patients referred to the anorectal physiology laboratory for evaluation of fecal incontinence were prospectively interviewed and examined by a colon and rectal surgeon. A decision to treat either medically or surgically was reached. The patients underwent physiologic testing with transanal ultrasound, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency, and anorectal manometry. A panel of board-certified colon and rectal surgeons then reviewed the history and physical examination, as well as the anorectal physiology tests, of each patient and reached a consensus on management. Management plans before and after physiologic evaluation were compared. RESULTS: Ninety patients (6 males) were entered into the study. The patients were divided in two groups: those with pretest medical management plans (n=45) and those with pretest surgical management plans (n=45). A change in management was noted in nine patients (10 percent). In the medical management group, the management changed from medical to surgical therapy in five patients. Transanal ultrasound detected anal sphincter defects in all patients who changed from medical to surgical management but in only 10 percent of those who remained under medical management (P=0.0001). In the surgical management group, three patients (7 percent) changed from surgical to medical therapy and one patient (2 percent) changed from sphincteroplasty to neosphincter. Transanal ultrasound detected a limited anal sphincter defect in one patient (33 percent) who changed from surgical to medical management and a significant defect in all 41 patients (100 percent) who remained under surgical management (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Anorectal physiology testing is useful in the evaluation of patients with fecal incontinence. Without the information obtained from physiologic testing, 11 percent of patients who may have benefited from surgery would not have been given this option, and 7 percent of patients could have potentially undergone unnecessary surgery. Transanal ultrasound is the study most likely to change a patient's management plan.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ternent CA, Shashidharan M, Blatchford GJ, Christensen MA, Thorson AG. Do anorectal physiology tests result in altered therapy for fecal incontinence [abstract]? Gastroenterology 1996;110:A43.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nivatvongs S, Fang DT, Kennedy HL. The shape of the buttocks: a useful guide for selection of anesthesia and the patient position in anorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 1983;26:85–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:77–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ternent CA, Shashidharan M, Blatchford GJ, Christensen MA, Thorson AG, Sentovich SM. Transanal ultrasound and anorectal physiology findings affecting continence after sphincteroplasty. Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:462–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cali RL, Blatchford GJ, Perry RE, Pitsch RM, Thorson AG, Christensen MA. Normal variation in anorectal manometry. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:1161–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sangwan YP, Coller JA, Barrett RC,et al. Unilateral pudendal neuropathy: impact on outcome of anal sphincter repair. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:686–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sangwan YP, Coller JA, Barrett MS, Murray JJ, Roberts PL, Schoetz DJ Jr. Unilateral pudendal neuropathy: significance and implications. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:249–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Carty NJ, Moran B, Johnson CD. Anorectal physiology measurements are of no value in clinical practice: true or false? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1994;76:276–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Keating JP, Stewart PJ, Eyers AA, Warner D, Bokey EL. Are special investigations of value in the management of patients with fecal incontinence? Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:896–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rao SS, Patel RS. How useful are manometric tests of anorectal function in the management of defecation disorders? Am J Gastroenterol 1997;92:469–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Speakman CT, Henry MM. The work of an anorectal physiology laboratory. Baillieres Clin Gastroenterol 1992;6:59–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wexner SD, Jorge JM. Colorectal physiological tests: use or abuse of technology? Eur J Surg 1994;160:167–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen H, Humphreys MS, Kettlewell MG, Bulkley GB, Mortensen N, George BD. Anal ultrasound predicts the response to nonoperative treatment of fecal incontinence in men. Ann Surg 1999;229:739–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen AS, Luchtefeld MA, Senagore AJ, Mackeigan JM, Hoyt C. Pudendal nerve latency: does it predict outcome of anal sphincter repair? Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:1005–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sentovich SM, Wong WD, Blatchford GJ. Accuracy and reliability of transanal ultrasound for anterior anal sphincter injury. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:1000–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rieger NA, Sweeney JL, Hoffmann DC, Young JF, Hunter A. Investigation of fecal incontinence with endoanal ultrasound. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:860–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hallan RI, Marzouk DE, Waldron DJ, Womack NR, Williams NS. Comparison of digital and manometric assessment of anal sphincter function. Br J Surg 1989;76:973–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O'Kelly TJ, Mortensen NJ. Tests of anorectal function. Br J Surg 1992;79:988–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barnett JL, Hasler WL, Camilleri M, for the American Gastroenterological Association. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 1999;116:732–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Salanga VD, Corredor C, Jagelman DG. Neurophysiologic assessment of the anal sphincters. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:606–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gilliland R, Altomare DF, Moreira H Jr, Oliveira L, Gilliland JE, Wexner SD. Pudendal neuropathy is predictive of failure following anterior overlapping sphincteroplasty. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:1516–22.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Simmang C, Birnbaum EH, Kodner IJ, Fry RD, Fleshman JW. Anal sphincter reconstruction in the elderly: does advancing age affect outcome? Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:1065–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nikiteas N, Korsgen S, Kumar D, Keighley MR. Audit of sphincter repair: factors associated with poor outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1164–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Winner of the Pittsburgh Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons Karl A. Zimmerman, M.D., Award.

About this article

Cite this article

Liberman, H., Faria, J., Ternent, C.A. et al. A prospective evaluation of the value of anorectal physiology in the management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 44, 1567–1574 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234373

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234373

Key words

Navigation