Skip to main content
Log in

L’approche clinique est-elle suffisante dans la prise en charge des troubles anorectaux de l’adulte?

Is clinical assessment enough to guide the management of anorectal disorders?

  • Pratique Médicale / Medical Practice
  • Published:
Pelvi-périnéologie

Résumé

Hormis le cas de l’incontinence anale active pour les selles solides, qui peut exceptionnellement être améliorée par un traitement symptomatique, un traitement symptomatique peut être proposé à un grand nombre de patients sans avoir recours aux examens spécialisés du périnée. Il est possible d’obtenir une vacuité rectale efficace chez les patients souffrant de difficultés d’exonération ou d’incontinence anale passive. En cas d’incontinence anale active pour les selles liquides, la plus grande efficacité pour améliorer les malades repose sur le traitement d’une diarrhée. En cas d’incontinence active pour les gaz, la prise en charge diététique est sans doute la solution la plus efficace. L’approche clinique est donc suffisante chez un très grand nombre de patients pour faire disparaître le symptôme sans avoir recours aux examens spécialisés pour explorer l’anatomie et la physiologie du périnée. Le traitement curatif d’une dyschésie ou d’une incontinence anale nécessite l’étude de l’anatomie et de la physiologie du périnée, car les causes de la dyschésie et de l’incontinence anale sont souvent multifactorielles et le choix du traitement doit donc tenir compte de l’intrication fréquente des anomalies anatomiques et fonctionnelles. Si l’examen clinique est dans certains cas supérieur aux examens complémentaires pour étudier ces mécanismes, il n’est pas suffisant pour affirmer l’absence de rupture sphinctérienne, de neuropathie, d’entérocèle ou de sigmoïdocèle. L’approche clinique n’est donc pas suffisante pour le traitement curatif d’une dyschésie ou d’une incontinence anale.

Abstract

Except for fecal incontinence involving solid stool, conservative measures, including bowel transit regulation and biofeedback, may be the first steps in treating most patients suffering from anorectal disorders before performing anorectal manometry, imaging, and neurophysiological testing. Enemas and laxatives are usually sufficient to obtain emptied rectal ampulla and resolve rectal emptying difficulties and passive anal incontinence. Diarrhoea treatment is the first step in cases of liquid stool incontinence. For gas incontinence, appropriate dietary intervention is probably the best treatment. Thus it seems possible to improve anorectal disorders in most patients without performing specialized tests. If conservative measures fail to improve anorectal disorders, surgery may be considered. In this case, specialized tests must be performed because anorectal disorders result from the interplay of multiple pathogenic mechanisms and are rarely attributable to a single factor. Sensory dysfunction, neuropathy, sphincter defects, enterocele, and sigmoidocele may interfere with surgical management and are best diagnosed through anorectal testing.

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.

Références

  1. Siproudhis L, Pigot F, Godeberge P, et al. (2006) Defecation disorders: a French population survey. Dis Colon Rectum 49: 219–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rao SS (2006) A balancing view: faecal incontinence: test or treat empirically, which strategy is best? Am J Gastroenterol 101: 2683–2684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bharucha AE (2006) Pro: anorectal testing is useful in faecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol 101: 2679–2681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wald A (2006) Con: anorectal manometry and imaging are not necessary in patients with faecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol 101: 2681–2683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jarrett ME, Mowatt G, Glazener CM, et al. (2004) Systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation. Br J Surg 91: 1559–1569

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rogers RG, Abed H, Fenner DE (2006) Current diagnosis and treatment algorithms for anal incontinence. BJU Int 98(suppl 1): 97–106; discussion 107–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rao SS (2004) Diagnosis and management of faecal incontinence. American College of Gastroenterology Practice Parameters Committee. Am J Gastroenterol 99: 1585–1604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jaffin BW, Chang P, Spiera H (1997) Faecal incontinence in scleroderma. Clinical features, anorectal manometric findings, and their therapeutic implications. J Clin Gastroenterol 25: 513–517

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Michot F, Costaglioli B, Leroi AM, Denis P (2003) Artificial anal sphincter in severe faecal incontinence: outcome of prospective experience with 37 patients in one institution. Ann Surg 237: 52–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rao SS (2004) Pathophysiology of adult faecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126: S14–S22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Demirci S, Gallas S, Bertot-Sassigneux P, et al. (2006) Anal incontinence: the role of medical management. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 30: 954–960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eckardt VF, Schmitt T, Bernhard G (1997) Anal ultra slow waves: a smooth muscle phenomenon associated with dyschezia. Dig Dis Sci 42: 2439–2445

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ducrotte P, Rodomanska B, Weber J, et al. (1986) Colonic transit time of radiopaque markers and rectoanal manometry in patients complaining of constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 29: 630–634

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Siproudhis L, Ropert A, Vilotte J, et al. (1993) How accurate is clinical examination in diagnosing and quantifying pelvirectal disorders? A prospective study in a group of 50 patients complaining of defecatory difficulties. Dis Colon Rectum 36: 430–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dobben AC, Terra MP, Deutekom M, et al. (2007) Anal inspection and digital rectal examination compared to anorectal physiology tests and endoanal ultrasonography in evaluating faecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis 7: 783–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Karoui S, Leroi AM, Koning E, et al. (2000) Results of sphincteroplasty in 86 patients with anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43: 813–820

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gourcerol G, Gallas S, Michot F, et al. (2007) Sacral nerve stimulation in faecal incontinence: are there factors associated with success? Dis Colon Rectum 50: 3–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bardoux N, Leroi AM, Touchais JY, et al. (1997) Difficult defecation and/or faecal incontinence as a presenting feature of neurologic disorders in four patients. Neurogastroenterol Motil 9: 13–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lefaucheur JP (2006) Neurophysiological testing in anorectal disorders. Muscle Nerve 33: 324–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pescatori M, Quondamcarlo C (1999) A new grading of rectal internal mucosal prolapse and its correlation with diagnosis and treatment. Int J Colorectal Dis 14: 245–249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Agachan F, Pfeifer J, Wexner SD (1996) Defecography and proctography. Results of 744 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 39: 899–905

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mellgren A, Bremmer S, Johansson C, et al. (1994) Defecography. Results of investigations in 2,816 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 37: 1133–1141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Stoker J, Halligan S, Bartram CI (2001) Pelvic floor imaging. Radiology 218: 621–641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hornback JA, Benson JT (1992) Pelvic prolapse: assessment with evacuation proctography (defecography). Radiology 184: 547–551

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Denis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Touchais, J.Y., Leroi, A.M. & Denis, P. L’approche clinique est-elle suffisante dans la prise en charge des troubles anorectaux de l’adulte?. Pelv Perineol 2, 360–365 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11608-007-0153-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11608-007-0153-x

Mots clés

Keywords

Navigation