Search

Background Evacuatory dysfunction (ED) is a common cause of constipation and may be sub-classified on the basis of specialist tests. Such tests may guide treatment e.g., biofeedback therapy for ‘functional’ defecatory disorders (FDD). However, there is no gold standard, and prior studies have not prospectively and systematically compared all tests that are used to diagnose forms of ED. Methods One hundred consecutive patients fulfilling Rome III criteria for functional constipation underwent four tests: expulsion of a rectal balloon distended to 50 mL (BE50) or until patients experienced the desire to defecate (BEDDV), evacuation proctography (EP) and anorectal manometry. Yields and agreements between tests for the diagnosis of ED and FDD were assessed. Key Results Positive diagnostic yields for ED were: BEDDV 18%, BE50 31%, EP 38% and anorectal manometry (ARM) 68%. Agreement was substantial between the two balloon tests (k = 0.66), only fair between proctography and BE50 (k = 0.27), poor between manometry and proctography (k = 0.01), and there was no agreement between the balloon tests and manometry (k = −0.07 for both BE50 and BEDDV). For the diagnosis of FDD, there was only fair agreement between ARM and EP (k = 0.23), ARM ± BE50 and EP (k = 0.18), ARM and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.30) and ARM ± BE50 and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.23). Conclusions & Inferences There is considerable disagreement between the results of various tests used to diagnose ED and FDD. This highlights the need for a reappraisal of both diagnostic criteria, and what represents the ‘gold standard’ investigation.

Background Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and sacral nerve stimulation are both second-line treatments for fecal incontinence, but the comparative efficacy of the 2 therapies is unknown. In our institution, patients with refractory fecal incontinence are generally treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation before being considered for sacral nerve stimulation. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the outcome associated with this treatment algorithm in order to guide future management strategies. Design All patients with fecal incontinence treated over a 3-year period with tibial nerve stimulation before receiving sacral nerve stimulation were identified from a prospectively recorded database. Demographics and pretreatment anorectal physiological data were available for all patients. Settings This study was conducted at an academic colorectal unit in a tertiary center. Patients Twenty patients (17 female:3 male, median age 55 (33-79) years) were identified to be refractory to percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation. Main outcome measures Clinical outcome data were collected prospectively before and after treatment, including 1) Cleveland Clinic Florida-Fecal Incontinence scores and 2) number of incontinence episodes per week. Results The mean (±SD) pretreatment incontinence score (11.7 ± 3.5) did not differ from the mean incontinence score after 12 sessions of tibial nerve stimulation (10.9 ± 3.6, p = 0.42). All patients were subsequently counseled for sacral nerve stimulation, and 68.4% of them reported a significant therapeutic benefit with an improved incontinence score (7.7 ± 4.1, p = 0.014). Limitations This was a nonrandomized study with a relatively small number of patients Conclusion Sacral nerve stimulation appears to be an effective treatment for patients who do not gain an adequate therapeutic benefit from percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and, thus, should be routinely considered for this patient cohort.

Prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial of 14 female patients (median age 52 [30-69] years) with proctographically defined evacuatory dysfunction (ED) and demonstrable rectal hyposensitivity (elevated thresholds to balloon distension in comparison with age- and sex-matched controls).Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is an evolving treatment for constipation. However, variable outcomes might be improved by better patient selection. Evidence that the effect of SNS may be mediated by modulation of afferent signaling promotes a role in patients with ED associated with rectal hyposensation.SNS was performed by the standard 2-stage technique (temporary then permanent implantation). During a 4-week period of temporary stimulation, patients were randomized ON-OFF/OFF-ON for two 2-week periods. Before insertion (PRE), and during each crossover period, primary (rectal sensory thresholds) and secondary (bowel diaries, constipation, and GIQoL [gastrointestinal quality of life] scores) outcome variables were blindly assessed.Thirteen patients completed the trial. Following stimulation, defecatory desire volumes to rectal balloon distension were normalized in 10 of 13 patients (PRE: mean 277 mL [234-320] vs ON: 163 mL [133-193] vs OFF: 220 mL [183-257 mL]; P = 0.006) and maximum tolerable volume in 9 of 13 (PRE: mean 350 mL [323-377] vs ON: 262 mL [219-305] vs OFF: 298 mL [256-340 mL]; P = 0.012). There was a significant increase in the percentage of successful bowel movements (PRE: median 43% [0-100] vs ON: 89% [11-100] vs OFF: 83% [11-100]; P = 0.007) and Wexner constipation scores improved (PRE: median 19 [9-26] vs ON: 10 [6-27] vs OFF: 13 [5-29]; P = 0.01). There were no significant changes in disease-specific or generic quality of life measures. Eleven patients progressed to permanent stimulation (9/11 success at 19 months).Most patients with chronic constipation secondary to ED with rectal hyposensitivity responded to temporary SNS. The physiological results presented support a mechanistic role for rectal afferent modulation.

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a minimally invasive surgical technique with high success rates and few complications for the treatment of faecal incontinence (FI). It is now considered the first-line surgical option for FI in the UK and has been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) since 2007. The ultimate aim of all FI treatments is to improve quality of life (QoL). In this article, Noel Thin, Charles Knowles and Marion Allison review the current literature on the effectiveness of SNS in improving QoL and the different measures used to assess this, focusing on outcomes in the medium (12–36 months) and long-term (over 36 months). The congruence and use of QoL measures in the evaluation of success within the present literature is also assessed.

TIAs secondary to carotid stenoses are unusual in young patients with no obvious cardiovascular risk factors, and may be missed.

Pelvic radiotherapy can cause anal stenosis. Patients can be left with severe rectal evacuatory difficulties, anal fissuring and resistant faecal incontinence. The management of such patients is difficult since surgical treatment can worsen faecal incontinence.We report a patient who was treated for recurrent fissuring and faecal incontinence secondary to severe anal stenosis caused by external beam radiotherapy to his prostate. A 74-year-old male patient underwent excision of the fissuring, fibrotic anal mucosa and internal sphincter and was then treated with a broad-based House advancement anoplasty. The patient's fissuring was successfully treated but he still suffered from faecal incontinence. The patient underwent sacral nerve stimulation with significant improvement in all faecal incontinence symptoms.The use of a novel combination of a House advancement anoplasty and sacral nerve stimulation is a safe and effective treatment rationale for treatment of radiation-induced anal stenosis.

Background Over the past 18 years neuromodulation therapies have gained support as treatments for faecal incontinence (FI); sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is the most established of these. A systematic review was performed of current evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of neuromodulation treatments for FI. Methods The review adhered to the PRISMA framework. A comprehensive search of the literature included PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were completed in a systematic fashion. Results For SNS, 321 citations were identified initially, of which 61 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of studies on other neuromodulation techniques, 11 were eligible for review: seven on percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and four on transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS). On intention-to-treat, the median (range) success rates for SNS were 63 (33–66), 58 (52–81) and 54 (50–58) per cent in the short, medium and long terms respectively. The success rate for PTNS was 59 per cent at the longest reported follow-up of 12 months. SNS, PTNS and TTNS techniques also resulted in improvements in Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score and quality-of-life measures. Despite significant use of neuromodulation in treatment of FI, there is still no consensus on outcome reporting in terms of measures used, aetiologies assessed, length of follow-up or assessment standards. Conclusion Emerging data for SNS suggest maintenance of its initial therapeutic effect into the long term. The clinical effectiveness of PTNS is comparable to that of SNS at 12 months, although there is no evidence to support its continued effectiveness after this period. PTNS may be a useful treatment before SNS. The clinical effectiveness of TTNS is still uncertain owing to the paucity of available evidence. A consensus to standardize the use of outcome measures is recommended in order that further reports can be compared meaningfully.

Background Two forms of tibial nerve stimulation are used to treat faecal incontinence (FI): percutaneous (PTNS) and transcutaneous (TTNS) tibial nerve stimulation. This article critically appraises the literature on both procedures. Methods A systematic review was performed adhering to the PRISMA framework. A comprehensive literature search was conducted, with systematic methodological quality assessment and data extraction. Summary measures for individual outcome variables are reported. Results Twelve articles met eligibility criteria; six related to PTNS, five to TTNS, and one to both procedures. These included ten case series and two randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Case series were evaluated using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment for case series, scoring 3–6 of 8. RCTs were evaluated using the Jadad score, scoring 4 of a possible 5 marks, and the Cochrane Collaboration bias assessment tool. From one RCT and case series reports, the success rate of PTNS, based on the proportion of patients who achieved a reduction in weekly FI episodes of at least 50 per cent, was 63–82 per cent, and that of TTNS was 0–45 per cent. In an RCT of TTNSversus sham, no patient had a reduction in weekly FI episodes of 50 per cent or more, whereas in an RCT of PTNSversus TTNSversus sham, 82 per cent of patients undergoing PTNS, 45 per cent of those having TTNS, and 13 per cent of patients in the sham group had treatment success. Conclusion PTNS and TTNS result in significant improvements in some outcome measures; however, TTNS was not superior to sham stimulation in a large, adequately powered, RCT. As no adequate RCT of PTNSversus sham has been conducted, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding this treatment.