Whitehead, William E.

ABSTRACTBackground and AimsBowel diaries are used to characterize the severity of fecal incontinence (FI) but have not been adequately validated for this purpose. Our aims were to validate a new bowel diary and to compare the characteristics of FI as assessed with a bowel diary and a validated questionnaire.MethodsIn this four‐center prospective study, patients with a history of FI and asymptomatic controls completed a 28‐day bowel diary and validated questionnaires to evaluate bowel habits and FI, quality of life related to FI (FIQoL), and PROMIS scales for anxiety, depression, and self‐efficacy.ResultsAmong 59 participants with FI and 29 asymptomatic controls, the bowel diary was 97% sensitive and 93% specific for distinguishing between FI participants and controls. Over 28 days, FI participants experienced an average [SD] of 31.1 [50.7] FI episodes, consisting of staining (12.6 [14.9]), some stool (12.5 [20.3]), or a full bowel movement (4.4 [8.5]). Correlations between the questionnaire and diary were statistically significant for frequency (Spearman ρ = 0.5, p < 0.001), amount (ρ = 0.4, p < 0.001), and awareness of FI (ρ = 0.3, p = 0.04). In 71% of participants, there was agreement between the consistency of FI as reported in the questionnaire and the diary. More severe FI was associated with poorer FIQoL (p = 0.002). Anxiety, depression, and self‐efficacy scores did not significantly affect the agreement between the frequency of FI reported in the diary and questionnaire.ConclusionThis bowel diary effectively discriminates between healthy participants and those with FI. There is significant, albeit modest, agreement between the characteristics of FI recorded with a diary and a questionnaire.

Benign anorectal disorders of structure and function are common in clinical practice. These guidelines summarize the preferred approach to the evaluation and management of defecation disorders, proctalgia syndromes, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and fecal incontinence in adults and represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. When the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, we used expert consensus to develop key concept statements. These guidelines should be considered as preferred but are not the only approaches to these conditions.

AbstractBackgroundThe equipment and methods for performing anorectal manometry and biofeedback therapy are different and not standardized. Normal values are influenced by age and sex. Our aims were to generate reference values, examine effects of gender and age, and compare anorectal pressures measured with diagnostic and biofeedback catheters and a portable manometry system.MethodsIn this multicenter study, anorectal pressures at rest, during squeeze, and evacuation were measured with diagnostic and biofeedback catheters using Mcompass™ portable device in healthy subjects. Balloon expulsion time and rectal sensation were evaluated. The effects of age and gender were assessed.ResultsThe final dataset comprised 108 (74 women) of 124 participants with normal rectal balloon expulsion time (less than 60 s). During squeeze, anal resting pressure increased by approximately twofold in women and threefold in men. During evacuation, anal pressure exceeded rectal pressure in 87 participants (diagnostic catheter). The specific rectoanal pressures (e.g., resting pressure) were significantly correlated and not different between diagnostic and biofeedback catheters. With the diagnostic catheter, the anal squeeze pressure and rectal pressure during evacuation were greater in men than women (p ≤ 0.02). Among women, women aged 50 years and older had lower anal resting pressure; rectal pressure and the rectoanal gradient during evacuation were greater in older than younger women (p ≤ 0.01).ConclusionsAnal and rectal pressures measured with diagnostic and biofeedback manometry catheters were correlated and not significantly different. Pressures were influenced by age and sex, providing reference values in men and women.

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundAnorectal disorders such as dyssynergic defecation, fecal incontinence, levator ani syndrome, and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome are common, and affect both the adult and pediatric populations. Although they are treated with several treatment approaches, over the last two decades, biofeedback therapy using visual and verbal feedback techniques has emerged as an useful option. Because it is safe, it is commonly recommended. However, the clinical efficacy of biofeedback therapy in adults and children is not clearly known, and there is a lack of critical appraisal of the techniques used and the outcomes of biofeedback therapy for these disorders.PurposeThe American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility convened a task force to examine the indications, study performance characteristics, methodologies used, and the efficacy of biofeedback therapy, and to provide evidence‐based recommendations. Based on the strength of evidence, biofeedback therapy is recommended for the short‐term and long‐term treatment of constipation with dyssynergic defecation (Level I, Grade A), and for the treatment of fecal incontinence (Level II, Grade B). Biofeedback therapy may be useful in the short‐term treatment of Levator Ani Syndrome with dyssynergic defecation (Level II, Grade B), and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome with dyssynergic defecation (Level III, Grade C), but the evidence is fair. Evidence does not support the use of biofeedback for the treatment of childhood constipation (Level 1, Grade D).

ABSTRACTBackground:Although direct medical costs for constipation‐related medical visits are thought to be high, to date there have been no studies examining whether longitudinal resource use is persistently elevated in children with constipation. Our aim was to estimate the incremental direct medical costs and types of health care use associated with constipation from childhood to early adulthood.Methods:A nested case‐control study was conducted to evaluate the incremental costs associated with constipation. The original sample consisted of 5718 children in a population‐based birth cohort who were born during 1976 to 1982 in Rochester, MN. The cases included individuals who presented to medical facilities with constipation. The controls were matched and randomly selected among all noncases in the sample. Direct medical costs for cases and controls were collected from the time subjects were between 5 and 18 years of age or until the subject emigrated from the community.Results:We identified 250 cases with a diagnosis of constipation in the birth cohort. Although the mean inpatient costs for cases were $9994 (95% Confidence interval [CI] 2538–37,201) compared with $2391 (95% CI 923–7452) for controls (P = 0.22) during the time period, the mean outpatient costs for cases were $13,927 (95% CI 11,325–16,525) compared with $3448 (95% CI 3771–4621) for controls (P < 0.001) during the same time period. The mean annual number of emergency department visits for cases was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62–0.70) compared with 0.34 (95% CI 0.32–0.35) for controls (P < 0.0001).Conclusions:Individuals with constipation have higher medical care use. Outpatient costs and emergency department use were significantly greater for individuals with constipation from childhood to early adulthood.