Literature DB >> 11357026

The relationship of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency to squeeze pressure in patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence.

C B Súilleabháin1, A F Horgan, L McEnroe, F W Poon, J H Anderson, I G Finlay, R F McKee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: With the advent of transanal ultrasonography it has been possible to identify those incontinent patients without sphincter defects. The majority of these patients are now thought to have neurogenic fecal incontinence secondary to pudendal neuropathy. They have been found to have reduced anal sphincter pressures and increased pudendal nerve terminal motor latencies. The aim of this study was to determine whether in those incontinent patients who do not have a sphincter defect, prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency correlates with anal manometry, in particular maximum squeeze pressure.
METHODS: Sixty-six incontinent patients were studied with transanal ultrasonography, anorectal manometry, and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency. Twenty-seven continent controls had anorectal manometry and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency measured.
RESULTS: Maximum resting pressure and maximum squeeze pressure were significantly lower in the group of incontinent patients with bilateral prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (median maximum resting pressure = 26.5 mmHg; median maximum squeeze pressure = 60 mmHg) when compared with incontinent patients with normal bilateral pudendal nerve terminal motor latencies (median maximum resting pressure = 46 mmHg; median maximum squeeze pressure = 79 mmHg; maximum resting pressure P = 0.004; and maximum squeeze pressure P = 0.04). In incontinent patients with no sphincter defects no correlation between pudendal nerve terminal motor latency and maximum squeeze pressure was found (r = -0.109, P = 0.48) and maximum squeeze pressure did not correlate with bilateral or unilateral prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (r = -0.148, P = 0.56 and r = 0.355, P = 0.19 respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence damage to the pelvic floor is more complex than damage to the pudendal nerve alone. Although increased pudendal nerve terminal motor latency may indicate that neuropathy is present, in patients with neuropathic fecal incontinence, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency does not correlate with maximum squeeze pressure. Normal pudendal nerve terminal motor latency does not exclude weakness of the pelvic floor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11357026     DOI: 10.1007/bf02234563

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  10 in total

1.  Effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation in fecal incontinence after multimodal oncologic treatment for pelvic malignancies: a multicenter study with 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  M Schiano di Visconte; G A Santoro; N Cracco; G Sarzo; G Bellio; M Brunner; Z Cui; K E Matzel
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  Cortico-anorectal, Spino-anorectal, and Cortico-spinal Nerve Conduction and Locus of Neuronal Injury in Patients With Fecal Incontinence.

Authors:  Xuelian Xiang; Tanisa Patcharatrakul; Amol Sharma; Rachael Parr; Shaheen Hamdy; Satish S C Rao
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  [Progress in diagnostics of anorectal disorders. Part I: anatomic background and clinical and neurologic procedures].

Authors:  F G Bader; R Bouchard; R Keller; L Mirow; R Czymek; J K Habermann; H Fritsch; H-P Bruch; U J Roblick
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency in patients with or without soiling 5 years or more after low anterior resection for lower rectal cancer.

Authors:  Ryouichi Tomita; Seigo Igarashi; Taro Ikeda; Tsugumichi Koshinaga; Shigeru Fujisaki; Katsuhisa Tanjoh
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 5.  Fecal incontinence - Challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Nallely Saldana Ruiz; Andreas M Kaiser
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-01-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Translumbosacral Anorectal Magnetic Stimulation Test for Fecal Incontinence.

Authors:  Yun Yan; Amol Sharma; Anam A Herekar; Enoe Jimenez; Amit R Hudgi; Qiaochu G Gu; Satish S C Rao
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  [Fecal incontinence].

Authors:  J Braun; S Willis
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 0.955

8.  Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency testing does not provide useful information in guiding therapy for fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Julia T Saraidaridis; George Molina; Lieba R Savit; Holly Milch; Tiffany Mei; Samantha Chin; James Kuo; Liliana Bordeianou
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-01-13       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 9.  Diagnostic testing in fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Anjana Kumar; Satish S C Rao
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2003-10

10.  What Is Fecal Incontinence That Urologists Need to Know?

Authors:  HongWook Kim; Jisung Shim; Yumi Seo; Changho Lee; Youngseop Chang
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 2.835

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.