AIM: There is poor consensus in the literature about measuring perineal descent. We aimed to assess symptoms and quality of life in constipated patients with abnormal perineal descent. METHOD: Constipated patients were categorized into those with obstructed defaecation, colonic inertia, mixed disorders and irritable bowel syndrome constipation types. Anal physiology was performed. KESS score, Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life and SF-12 questionnaires were completed. The position of the perineum was measured by defaecography. Patients were divided into two groups according to the position of the perineal descent at rest: group 1 (normal < 3.5 cm) and group 2 (abnormal > 3.5 cm). RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were identified, 23 (40%) in group 1 and 35 (60%) in group 2. Patients in group 2 were older (P = 0.007), had a higher body mass index (BMI; P = 0.003), a higher rate of hysterectomy (P = 0.04) and more vaginal deliveries (P = 0.001). Obstructed defaecation was the predominant subtype of constipation. Group 1 had more difficulty in initiating defaecation and group 2 presented more cases with intussusception and enterocele (P = 0.03 for both). Group 2 had a lesser degree of perineal descent between rest and straining. Rectal compliance was greater in group 2 (P = 0.03). Symptoms and quality of life scores were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Radiologically determined excessive perineal descent is not indicative of worse symptoms or quality of life. This radiological finding does not warrant further investigation.
AIM: There is poor consensus in the literature about measuring perineal descent. We aimed to assess symptoms and quality of life in constipatedpatients with abnormal perineal descent. METHOD:Constipatedpatients were categorized into those with obstructed defaecation, colonic inertia, mixed disorders and irritable bowel syndrome constipation types. Anal physiology was performed. KESS score, Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life and SF-12 questionnaires were completed. The position of the perineum was measured by defaecography. Patients were divided into two groups according to the position of the perineal descent at rest: group 1 (normal < 3.5 cm) and group 2 (abnormal > 3.5 cm). RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were identified, 23 (40%) in group 1 and 35 (60%) in group 2. Patients in group 2 were older (P = 0.007), had a higher body mass index (BMI; P = 0.003), a higher rate of hysterectomy (P = 0.04) and more vaginal deliveries (P = 0.001). Obstructed defaecation was the predominant subtype of constipation. Group 1 had more difficulty in initiating defaecation and group 2 presented more cases with intussusception and enterocele (P = 0.03 for both). Group 2 had a lesser degree of perineal descent between rest and straining. Rectal compliance was greater in group 2 (P = 0.03). Symptoms and quality of life scores were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Radiologically determined excessive perineal descent is not indicative of worse symptoms or quality of life. This radiological finding does not warrant further investigation.