University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Citations 2
The international anorectal physiology working group (IAPWG) recommendations: Standardized testing protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function
Abstract Background This manuscript summarizes consensus reached by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) for the performance, terminology used, and interpretation of anorectal function testing including anorectal manometry (focused on high‐resolution manometry), the rectal sensory test, and the balloon expulsion test. Based on these measurements, a classification system for disorders of anorectal function is proposed. Methods Twenty‐nine working group members (clinicians/academics in the field of gastroenterology, coloproctology, and gastrointestinal physiology) were invited to six face‐to‐face and three remote meetings to derive consensus between 2014 and 2018. Key recommendations The IAPWG protocol for the performance of anorectal function testing recommends a standardized sequence of maneuvers to test rectoanal reflexes, anal tone and contractility, rectoanal coordination, and rectal sensation. Major findings not seen in healthy controls defined by the classification are as follows: rectoanal areflexia, anal hypotension and hypocontractility, rectal hyposensitivity, and hypersensitivity. Minor and inconclusive findings that can be present in health and require additional information prior to diagnosis include anal hypertension and dyssynergia. Conclusions and Inferences This framework introduces the IAPWG protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function based on objective physiological measurement. The use of a common language to describe results of diagnostic tests, standard operating procedures, and a consensus classification system is designed to bring much‐needed standardization to these techniques.
Relationship between symptoms and quality of life in fecal incontinence
AbstractBackgroundMost measures of fecal incontinence (FI) severity assess the frequency of solid and liquid FI, but may incorporate other features. We compared two scales—the Fecal Incontinence Severity Score (FISS) and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI)—to determine which questionnaire and which individual questions predict FI Quality of Life (FIQOL).MethodsA national sample of American adults completed a health questionnaire, and 234 with monthly FI were selected. Participants completed assessments of FI severity, FIQOL, and somatization. Stepwise linear regression models evaluated whether FISS and FISI total scores, or individual items on the FISS and FISI predicted FIQOL after adjusting for gender, age, income, and somatization (Brief Symptom Inventory‐18).Key ResultsReliable responses were provided by 186. Age was 49 years, and 52% were women. The mean FISS score was 8.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.0‐8.9, 13 questions) and mean FISI was 29.9 (95% CI 27.4‐32.4, 62 questions), indicating moderate FI severity. The mean FIQOL was 2.6 (95% CI 2.4‐2.7, 5 questions). Lower income, greater somatization, and total FISS and FISI scores explained 69% of FIQOL; and total FISS and FISI scores were independent predictors. On the FISS, frequency, amount, and urgency to defecate were independently associated with FIQOL. After adding somatization, all but amount remained significant. For the FISI scale, solid and liquid FI and gas were significant predictors, but adjusting for somatization excluded solid FI.Conclusions and InferencesFive variables independently explained FIQOL: overall frequency of FI, frequency of liquid and gas leakage, urgency, and somatization.