BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence is a socially disabling condition that affects a heterogeneous population of patients. There is no standardization of investigations, and treatment outcomes are variable. The major limitation for comparing the results from different studies is the lack of a pretreatment classification of incontinence. The aim of this study was to review the anorectal investigation findings and propose a simple, repeatable classification for faecal incontinence. METHODS: Patients who had anorectal investigations for defaecatory disorders from February 2000 to September 2006 were analysed retrospectively. All patients had anorectal manometry, anal mucosal electrosensitivity testing and endoanal ultrasonography. RESULTS: Of a total of 1294 patients, 135 were excluded, leaving 1159 (460 continent and 699 incontinent) for analysis. The patients were divided into four groups: traumatic incontinence, neuropathic faecal incontinence, combined faecal incontinence and idiopathic faecal incontinence. The manometric variables and demographics were distinct in these groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with faecal incontinence can be classified into different groups with distinct pathophysiological variables. Such a classification system will enable comparison and interpretation of the outcomes of different studies and also help in the selection of patients for appropriate treatments. 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence is a socially disabling condition that affects a heterogeneous population of patients. There is no standardization of investigations, and treatment outcomes are variable. The major limitation for comparing the results from different studies is the lack of a pretreatment classification of incontinence. The aim of this study was to review the anorectal investigation findings and propose a simple, repeatable classification for faecal incontinence. METHODS:Patients who had anorectal investigations for defaecatory disorders from February 2000 to September 2006 were analysed retrospectively. All patients had anorectal manometry, anal mucosal electrosensitivity testing and endoanal ultrasonography. RESULTS: Of a total of 1294 patients, 135 were excluded, leaving 1159 (460 continent and 699 incontinent) for analysis. The patients were divided into four groups: traumatic incontinence, neuropathic faecal incontinence, combined faecal incontinence and idiopathic faecal incontinence. The manometric variables and demographics were distinct in these groups. CONCLUSION:Patients with faecal incontinence can be classified into different groups with distinct pathophysiological variables. Such a classification system will enable comparison and interpretation of the outcomes of different studies and also help in the selection of patients for appropriate treatments. 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Karen I Hannigan; Aaron P Bossey; Holly J L Foulkes; Bernard T Drumm; Salah A Baker; Sean M Ward; Kenton M Sanders; Kathleen D Keef; Caroline A Cobine Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 4.379