Charlotte Desprez1,2, N Turmel3, C Chesnel3, P Mistry3, M Tamiatto3, R Haddad3, F Le Breton3, A-M Leroi4, C Hentzen3, G Amarenco3. 1. GRC 001, GREEN Groupe de Recherche Clinique en Neuro-Urologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France. charlotte-desprez@orange.fr. 2. Digestive physiology Unit, Rouen University Hospital, 1 rue de Germont, 76031, Rouen, France. charlotte-desprez@orange.fr. 3. GRC 001, GREEN Groupe de Recherche Clinique en Neuro-Urologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France. 4. Digestive physiology Unit, Rouen University Hospital, 1 rue de Germont, 76031, Rouen, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two subgroups of fecal incontinence (FI) are described in literature and used in clinical practice. However, the pertinence of this classification of FI is still unknown as there are no clear established guidelines. To a better understanding, we performed a systematic review to characterize the different types of FI (active, passive, or mixed) on the basis of clinical presentation and complementary explorations. METHODS: This systematic literature review was performed in reference to recommendations for systematic review using PRISMA guidelines without date restriction, until May 2020. This systematic review was performed without temporal limitation using MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. RESULTS: Six hundred nine unique citations were identified from all the databases combined. Of those, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 8 retrospective observational studies and 13 prospective observational studies. There was a lack of homogeneity in definitions of passive and urge (active) FI among studies. Prevalence of passive and urge FI was respectively of 4.0-5.0 and 15.0-35.0%. Clinical characteristics, physical examination, and endoanal imaging were not evaluated in most studies. In anorectal manometry, maximal squeeze pressure was higher in passive FI subgroup in most studies and results regarding maximal resting pressure remain discordant. There seemed to be no difference regarding first sensation volume and maximal tolerable volume among subgroups. A few studies evaluated pudendal terminal nerve motor latency with no difference among subgroups. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of well-conducted prospective studies comparing the different subtypes of FI with validated definitions in both clinical and paraclinical examinations.
PURPOSE: Two subgroups of fecal incontinence (FI) are described in literature and used in clinical practice. However, the pertinence of this classification of FI is still unknown as there are no clear established guidelines. To a better understanding, we performed a systematic review to characterize the different types of FI (active, passive, or mixed) on the basis of clinical presentation and complementary explorations. METHODS: This systematic literature review was performed in reference to recommendations for systematic review using PRISMA guidelines without date restriction, until May 2020. This systematic review was performed without temporal limitation using MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. RESULTS: Six hundred nine unique citations were identified from all the databases combined. Of those, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 8 retrospective observational studies and 13 prospective observational studies. There was a lack of homogeneity in definitions of passive and urge (active) FI among studies. Prevalence of passive and urge FI was respectively of 4.0-5.0 and 15.0-35.0%. Clinical characteristics, physical examination, and endoanal imaging were not evaluated in most studies. In anorectal manometry, maximal squeeze pressure was higher in passive FI subgroup in most studies and results regarding maximal resting pressure remain discordant. There seemed to be no difference regarding first sensation volume and maximal tolerable volume among subgroups. A few studies evaluated pudendal terminal nerve motor latency with no difference among subgroups. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of well-conducted prospective studies comparing the different subtypes of FI with validated definitions in both clinical and paraclinical examinations.
Authors: Annika M P Rasijeff; Karla García-Zermeño; Gian-Luca Di Tanna; José Remes-Troche; Charles H Knowles; Mark S Scott Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2022-01-30 Impact factor: 3.917
Authors: Alfonso Javier Ibáñez-Vera; Rosa María Mondéjar-Ros; Vanessa Franco-Bernal; Guadalupe Molina-Torres; Esther Diaz-Mohedo Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 4.964