Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A cross-sectional survey of the relationship between fecal incontinence and constipation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We compared the prevalence of fecal incontinence between constipated and nonconstipated women and correlated its prevalence with the number of Rome III constipation symptoms.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the prevalence of fecal incontinence and constipation among women who presented to two gynecologic clinics for routine care over a 24-month period. Fecal incontinence was defined as loss of well-formed and/or loose stool beyond the patient’s control that occurred at least once in the last 4 weeks, was bothersome, had been present for the past 3 or more months, and had affected the person’s activities, relationships, or feelings. Constipation was diagnosed using the Rome III criteria. Our study was exempt from institutional review board approval because it was a survey and did not ask for information that could be used to identify the participant.

Results

Mean age of the 2,319 participants was 50.1 ± 15 years and mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.7 ± 7. Seven hundred and twenty-five (31 %) women had constipation, and 233 (10 %) had fecal incontinence. One hundred and one (43 %) incontinent women had coexisting constipation. Logistic regression analysis identified white race (p = .013), menopause (p = .010), and constipation (p = .004) as risk factors for fecal incontinence. After controlling for these risk factors, constipated women were more likely to have fecal incontinence than nonconstipated women [relative risk (RR) 1.60, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.26–2.05]. In addition, the prevalence of fecal incontinence was strongly associated with the number of Rome III constipation symptoms (p < .001).

Conclusion

Constipation is an important risk factor for fecal incontinence.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nelson RL (2004) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126(Suppl 1):S3–S7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Whitehead WE, Norton NJ, Wald A (2004) Advancing the treatment of fecal and urinary incontinence through research. Gastroenterology 126(Suppl 1):S1–S2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kamm MA (1994) Obstetric damage and faecal incontinence. Lancet 344:730–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Karoui S, Leroi AM, Koning E, Menard JF, Michot F, Denis P (2000) Results of sphincteroplasty in 86 patients with anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43:813–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Trowbridge ER, Morgan D, Trowbridge MJ, DeLancey JOL, Fenner DE (2006) Sexual function, quality of life, and severity of anal incontinence after anal sphincteroplasty. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1753–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Malouf AJ, Chambers MG, Kamm MA (2001) Clinic and economic evaluation of surgical treatments for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 88:1029–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Halverson AL, Hull TL (2002) Long-term outcome of overlapping anal sphincter repair. Dis Colon Rectum 45:3451–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Norton C, Chelvanayagam S, Wilson-Barnett J, Redfern S, Kamm MA (2003) Randomized controlled trial of biofeedback for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 125:1320–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scarlett Y (2004) Gastroenterology 126(Suppl 1):S55–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nelson R, Furner S, Jesudason V (1998) Fecal incontinence in Wisconsin nursing homes. Dis Colon Rectum 41:1226–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chassagne P, Landrin I, Neveu C, Czernichow P, Bouaniche M, Doucet J et al (1999) Fecal incontinence in the institutionalized elderly: Incidence, risk factors, and prognosis. Am J Med 196:185–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boreham MK, Richter HE, Kenton KS, Nager CW, Gregory WT, Aronson MP et al (2005) Anal incontinence in women presenting for gynecologic care: Prevalence, risk factors, and impact upon quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1637–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, Houghton LA, Mearin F, Spiller RC (2006) Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 130:1480–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of fecal incontinence. Gut 44:77–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC (2005) Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:103–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bharucha A, Wald A, Enck P, Rao S (2006) Functional anorectal disorders. Gastroenterology 130:1510–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eddie H. M. Sze.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sze, E.H.M., Barker, C.D. & Hobbs, G. A cross-sectional survey of the relationship between fecal incontinence and constipation. Int Urogynecol J 24, 61–65 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1851-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1851-7

Keywords

Navigation