Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Postoperative anal canal length predicts outcome in patients having sphincter repair for fecal incontinence

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: Controversy exists in regard to the prognostic value of clinical data and physiological tests in patients undergoing sphincter repair for fecal incontinence. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic factors. METHODS: Between 1986 and 1996, 405 consecutive patients had a sphincter repair for fecal incontinence. Preoperative and postoperative manometric data were available on 51 of these patients, and these patients' charts were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative and postoperative continence was scored using the four-level scale of Browning and Parks. Mean follow-up was 16.2 (median, 6; range, 1–96) months. Mean age was 41 (median, 36; range, 21–80) years, and 46 (90 percent) patients were female. RESULTS: Twenty-three (45 percent) patients had perfect continence postoperatively, whereas 41 (80 percent) patients demonstrated improvement in continence score after sphincter repair. Using univariate analysis, various clinical and anal physiologic data were analyzed for an association with postoperative continence score. Postoperative mean resting pressure and postoperative anal canal length were both significantly related to postoperative continence (r Bs for Spearman correlation coefficient to differentiate from r for the Pearson coefficient. =0.442;P=0.0012; andr s=0.440;P=0.0012, respectively), whereas postoperative mean squeeze pressure was not (r s=0.273;P=0.0529). Postoperative mean resting pressure and anal canal length were entered into a logistic regression model. Postoperative mean resting pressure was not significant (P=0.6643), and when it was dropped from the model, postoperative anal canal length was highly significant (estimated odds ratio, 3.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1–9.3;P=0.0047) in predicting postoperative continence. CONCLUSIONS: No preoperative data predicted functional outcome, and in contrast to other studies, postoperative anal canal length provides the best prediction of postoperative continence.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thomas TM, Egan M, Walgrove A, Meade TW. The prevalence of faecal and double incontinence. Community Med 1984;6:216–20.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Leigh RJ, Turnberg LA. Faecal incontinence: the unvoiced symptom. Lancet 1982;1:1349–51.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Laurberg S, Swash M, Henry MM. Delayed external sphincter repair for obstetric tear. Br J Surg 1988;75:786–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Jagelman DG. The role of sphincteroplasty for fecal incontinence reevaluated: a prospective physiologic and functional review. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Browning GG, Parks AG. Postanal repair for neuropathic faecal incontinence: correlation of clinical result and anal canal pressures. Br J Surg 1983;70:101–4.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tuckson W, Lavery I, Fazio V, Oakley J, Church J, Milsom J. Manometric and functional comparison of ileal pouch anal anastomosis with and without anal manipulation. Am J Surg 1991;161:90–6.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hool GR, Hull TL, and Milsom JW. Use of endoanal ultrasonography: a review. J Pelvic Surg 1997;3:251–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Parks AG. Anorectal incontinence. Proc R Soc Med 1975;68:681–90.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Devesa JM, Vicente E, Enríquez JM,et al. Total fecal incontinence- a new method of gluteus maximus transposition—preliminary results and report of previous experience with similar procedures. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:339–49.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Parks AG, McPartlin JF. Late repair of injuries of the anal sphincter. Proc R Soc Med 1971;64:1187–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rasmussen OØ. Anorectal function. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:386–403.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  16. Scott AD, Henry MM, Phillips RK. Clinical assessment and anorectal manometry before postanal repair: failure to predict outcome. Br J Surg 1990;77:628–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Farouk R, Bartolo DC. The clinical contribution of integrated laboratory and ambulatory anorectal physiology assessment in faecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis 1993;8:60–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fleshman JW, Dreznik Z, Fry RD, Kodner IJ. Anal sphincter repair for obstetric injury: manometric evaluation of functional results. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:1061–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Felt-Bersma RJ, Cuesta MA, Koorevaar M. Anal sphincter repair improves anorectal function and endosonographic image: a prospective clinical study. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:878–85.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pedersen IK, Christiansen J. A study of the physiological variation in anal manometry. Br J Surg 1989;76:69–71.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tjandra JJ, Sharma BR, McKirdy HC, Lowndes RH, Mansel RE. Anorectal physiological testing in defecatory disorders: a prospective study. Aust N Z J Surg 1994;64:322–6.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Eckardt VF, Jung B, Fischer B, Lierse W. Anal endosonography in healthy subjects and patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:235–42.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nielsen MB, Hauge C, Rasmussen OØ, Pedersen JF, Christiansen J. Anal endosonographic findings in the follow-up of primarily sutured sphincteric ruptures. Br J Surg 1992;79:104–6.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI. Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1905–11.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Keighley MR, Henry MM, Bartolo DC, Mortensen NJ. Anorectal physiology measurement: report of a working party. Br J Surg 1989;76:356–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Engel AF, Kamm MA, Sultan AH, Bartram CI, Nicholls RJ. Anterior anal sphincter repair in patients with obstetric trauma. Br J Surg 1994;81:1231–4.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Engel AF, van Baal SJ, Brummelkamp WH. Late results of anterior sphincter plication for traumatic faecal incontinence. Eur J Surg 1994;160:633–6.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Österberg A, Graf W, Holmberg A, Påhlman L, Ljung A, Hakelius L. Long-term results of anterior levatoroplasty for fecal incontinence: a retrospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:671–5.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Fang DT, Nivatvongs S, Vermeulen FD, Herman FN, Goldberg SM, Rothenberger DA. Overlapping sphincteroplasty for acquired anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1984;27:720–2.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ctercteko GC, Fazio VW, Jagelman DG, Lavery IC, Weakley FL, Melia M. Anal sphincter repair: a report of 60 cases and review of the literature. Aust N Z J Surg 1988;58:703–10.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. From the Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

    Graham R. Hool M.D. & James M. Church M.D.

  2. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio

    Michael L. Lieber M.S.

Authors
  1. Graham R. Hool M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael L. Lieber M.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James M. Church M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, San Antonio, Texas, May 2 to 7, 1998.

About this article

Cite this article

Hool, G.R., Lieber, M.L. & Church, J.M. Postoperative anal canal length predicts outcome in patients having sphincter repair for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 42, 313–318 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236345

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236345

Key words

Search

Navigation