Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Postanal repair for fecal incontinence—Is it worthwhile?

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: Patients with idiopathic or neurogenic incontinence without an isolated sphincter defect may be suitable candidates for a postanal repiar. The aim of this study was to assess the results of postanal repair in patients with idiopathic or neurogenic fecal incontinence and to evaluate the role of various parameters, including preoperative physiologic testing on outcome. METHODS: Postanal repair was offered by a single surgeon to patients meeting the following criteria: incontinence score of at least 12 of 20, absence of an isolated anterior external anal sphincter defect, and failed conservative, medical, and biofeedback management. Physiologic investigation and clinical findings of female patients who had postanal repair for fecal incontinence between 1992 and 1998 were reviewed. Physiologic investigation included anorectal manometry, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency, concentric needle electromyography, and endoanal ultrasonography. Follow-up was obtained by telephone questionnaire; moreover, patients were asked to grade the outcome of their surgery as excellent or good (success) or as fair or poor (failure). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients of median age 68 (range, 40–80) years had a mean duration of fecal incontinence before postanal repair of 6.8 (range, 0.5–22) years. Twenty patients (95 percent) were available for at least one year of follow-up. Seventeen patients (80.9 percent) had at least one prior vaginal delivery, and prior sphincteroplasty had been performed in 10 patients (47.6 percent). The morbidity and mortality rates were 5 and 0 percent, respectively. After a mean follow-up period of three (range, 1–7.5) years, seven patients (35 percent) considered surgery to be successful and had a statistically significant decrease in their incontinence score. Neither prolongation of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency nor external sphincter damage as noted on electromyography or any of the preoperative manometric parameters correlated with outcome. Furthermore, patients' ages at surgery did not correlate with the degree of postoperative improvement in continence scores nor did the duration of the patients' symptoms, number of vaginal deliveries, or a history of previous surgery for fecal incontinence. CONCLUSION: None of the factors assessed was demonstrated to be predictive of outcome after postanal repair; moreover, the currently available preoperative testing has not altered the success rate, which remains low (35 percent). Despite the low success rate, the absence of any mortality and the low morbidity suggest that postanal repair may be a valid therapeutic approach. However, it should be offered only to selected patients with persistent, severe fecal incontinence despite an anatomically intact external anal sphincter who are not candidates for or refuse all other operative modalities.

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. Brockelhurst JC. Management of anal incontinence. Clin Gastroenterol 1975;4:467–87.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nelson R, Norton N, Cautley E, Furner S. Community based prevalence of anal incontinence. JAMA 1995;274:559–61.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Snooks SJ, Setchell M, Swash M, Henry MM. Injury to the innervation of pelvic floor sphincter musculature in childbirth. Lancet 1984;2:546–50.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Snooks SJ, Swash M, Mathers SE, Henry MM. Effect of vaginal delivery on the pelvic floor: a 5 year follow-up. Br J Surg 1990;77:1358–60.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sultan AH, Monga AK, Stanton SL. The pelvic floor sequelae of childbirth. Br J Hosp Med 1996;55:575–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Read M, Read NW, Barber DC, Duthie HL. Effects of loperamide on anal sphincter function in patients complaining of chronic diarrhea with fecal incontinence and urgency. Dig Dis Sci 1982;27:807–14.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wald A. Biofeedback for neurogenic fecal incontinence: rectal sensation is a determinant of outcome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1983;2:302–6.

    Google Scholar 

  8. MacLeod JH. Management of anal incontinence by biofeedback. Gastroenterology 1987;93:291–4.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Miner PB, Donelly JC, Read NW. Investigation of mode of action of biofeedback in treatment of fecal incontinence. Dig Dis Sci 1990;35:1291–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mavrantonis C, Wexner SD. A clinical approach to fecal incontinence. J Clin Gastroenterol 1998;27:108–21.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Parks AG, McPartlin JF. Later repair of injuries of the anal sphincter. J R Soc Med 1971;64:1187–9.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Slade MS, Goldberg SM, Schottler JL, Balcos EG, Christenson CE. Sphincteroplasty for acquired anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1977;20:33–5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Parks AG. Anorectal incontinence. J R Soc Med 1975;68:681–90.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Ferguson EF. Puborectalis sphincteroplasty for anal incontinence. South Med J 1984;77:423–5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Habr-Gama A, Alves PA, da Silva e Souza AH, Femenia Viera MJ, Brunetti-Netto C. Treatment of faecal incontinence by post-anal repair. Coloproctology 1986;8:244–6.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Womack NR, Morrison JF, Williams NS. Prospective study of the effects of postanal repair in neurogenic faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1988;75:48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yoshioka K, Keighley MR. Critical assessment of the quality of continence after postanal repair for fecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1989;76:1054–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Scheuer M, Kuijpers HC, Jacobs PP. Postanal repair restores anatomy rather than function. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:960–3.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rainey JB, Donaldson DR, Thompson JP. Postanal repair: which patients derive most benefit? J R Coll Surg Edinb 1990;35:101–5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Scott AN, 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 

  23. Orrom WJ, Miller R, Cornes H, Duthie G, Mortensen NJ, Bartolo DC. Comparison of anterior sphincteroplasty and postanal repair in the treatment of idiopathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:305–10.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Engel AF, van Baal SJ, Brummelkamp WH. Late results of postanal repair for idiopathic faecal incontinence. Eur J Surg 1994;160:637–40.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Setti-Carraro P, Kamm MA, Nicholls RJ. Long term results of postanal repair of neurogenic fecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1994;81:140–4.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jameson JS, Speakman CT, Darzi A, Chia YW, Henry MM. Audit of postanal repair in the treatment of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:369–72.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Parks AG, Porter NH, Hardcastle JD. The syndrome of the descending perineum. J R Soc Med 1996;59:477–82.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bartolo DC, Roe AM, Locke-Edmunds JC. Flap-valve theory of anorectal continence. Br J Surg 1986;73:1012–4.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jorge M, Wexner SD. Anorectal manometry: techniques and clinical applications. South Med J 1993;86:924–31.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vaccaro CA, Wexner SD, Teoh TA, Choi SK, Cheong DM, Salanga VD. Pudendal neuropathy is not related to physiologic pelvic outlet obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:630–4.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  32. Yoshioka K, Hyland G, Keighley MR. Physiological changes after postanal repair and parameters predicting outcome. Br J Surg 1988;75:1220–4.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Laurberg S, Swash M, Henry MM. Effect of postanal repair on progress of neurogenic damage to the pelvic floor. Br J Surg 1990;77:519–22.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Snooks SJ, Swash M, Henry M. Electrophysiologic and manometric assessment of failed postanal repair for anorectal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1984;27:733–6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. Oliveira L, Pfeifer J, Wexner SD. Physiological and outcome of anterior sphincteroplasty. Br J Surg 1996;83:502–5.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Deen KI, Kumar D, Williams JG, Grant EA, Keighley MR. Randomized trial of internal anal sphincter plication with pelvic floor repair for neurologic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:14–8.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pinho M, Ortiz J, Oya M, Panagamuwa B, Asperer J, Keighley MR. Total pelvic floor repair for the treatment of neuropathic fecal incontinence. Am J Surg 1992;163:340–3.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Baeten CG, Konsten J, Spaans F,et al. Dynamic graciloplasty for treatment of faecal incontinence. Lancet 1991;338:1163–5.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Williams NS, Patel J, George BD, Hallan RI, Watkins ES. Development of an electrically stimulated neoanal sphincter. Lancet 1991;338:1166–9.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Geerdes BP, Heineman E, Konsten J, Soeters PB. Baeten CG. Dynamic graciloplasty: complications and management. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:912–7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Christiansen J, Sorensen M, Rasmussen OO. Gracilis muscle transposition for fecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1990;77:1039–40.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mavrantonis C, Wexner SD. Stimulated graciloplasty for treatment of intractable fecal incontinence: critical influence of the method of stimulation. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:497–504.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Korsgen S, Keighley MR. Stimulated gracilis neosphincter—not as good as previously thought: report of four cases. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:1331–3.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lehur PA, Glemain P, Bruley des Varannes S, Buzelin JM, Leborgne J. Outcome of patients with an implanted artificial anal sphincter for severe faecal incontinence. A single institution report. Int J Colorectal Dis 1998;13:88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wong WD, Jensen JL, Bartolo DC, Rothenberger DA. Artificial anal sphincter. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1345–51.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 3000 West Cypress Creek Road, 33309, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    Hiroyoshi Matsuoka M.D., Constantinos Mavrantonis M.D.,  Steven D. Wexner M.D., Lucia Oliveria M.D., Robert Gilliland M.D. & Alon Pikarsky M.D.

Authors
  1. Hiroyoshi Matsuoka M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Constantinos Mavrantonis M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven D. Wexner M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lucia Oliveria M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Gilliland M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alon Pikarsky M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This study was supported in part by an educational grant from The Eleanor Naylor Dana Charitable Trust.

Dr. Mavrantonis is partially supported by a grant from the Onassis Educational Foundation.

About this article

Cite this article

Matsuoka, H., Mavrantonis, C., Wexner, S.D. et al. Postanal repair for fecal incontinence—Is it worthwhile?. Dis Colon Rectum 43, 1561–1567 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236739

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236739

Key words

Search

Navigation