Using a footstool does not aid simulated defecation in undifferentiated constipation: A randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: The use of a footstool has been advocated to optimize posture when sitting on the toilet and thus facilitate bowel evacuation. We aimed to assess the alterations in defecatory posture, and the changes in simulated defecation with use of a footstool in patients with constipation. METHODS: Forty-one patients (female 93%, mean 52 year, SD 14 year) with constipation referred to a tertiary neurogastroenterology unit were enrolled. A bowel questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Rome questionnaire were administered prior to anorectal manometry. Each patient underwent three rectal balloon expulsion tests in randomized order with no footstool, a 7-inch, and a 9-inch footstool. Additional assessments included angle between spine and femur, and visual analogue scales assessing ease of evacuation, urge to defecate, and discomfort with expulsion. KEY RESULTS: Defecatory posture was significantly altered by footstool use, with progressive narrowing of the angle between the spine and femur as footstool height increased (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Compared with no footstool, the use of a footstool was not associated with a change in balloon expulsion time and there was no difference between the two footstool heights. Subjectively, no significant change was identified in any of the three perceptions of balloon expulsion between no footstool and footstool use. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Although the use of a footstool led to changes in defecatory posture, it did not improve subjective or objective measures of simulated defecation in patients with undifferentiated constipation. Therefore, the recommendation for its use during evacuation cannot be applied to all patients with constipation.

Flatus Incontinence and Fecal Incontinence: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Incontinence to gas can be a troublesome symptom impacting quality of life for patients even in the absence of fecal incontinence. Whether isolated flatus incontinence represents part of the spectrum of true fecal incontinence or a separate condition with a different pathophysiology remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical features and anorectal physiology in women presenting with severe isolated flatus incontinence compared to women with fecal incontinence and healthy asymptomatic women. DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-control study of prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: Data from participants were obtained from a single tertiary Neurogastroenterology Unit in Sydney, Australia. PATIENTS: Data from 34 patients with severe isolated flatus incontinence, 127 women with fecal incontinence' and 44 healthy women were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were clinical (including demographic, obstetric, and symptom variables) and physiological differences across the 3 groups. RESULTS: Patients with flatus incontinence were significantly younger (mean 39 versus 63 years; p = 0.0001), had a shorter history of experiencing their symptoms ( p = 0.0001), and had harder stool form than patients with fecal incontinence ( p = 0.02). Those with flatus incontinence had an adverse obstetric history and impaired anorectal physiology (motor and sensory, specifically rectal hypersensitivity) but to a lesser extent than patients with fecal incontinence. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and modest sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Anorectal physiology was impaired in patients with flatus incontinence compared to healthy controls, but to a lesser extent than in those with fecal incontinence, raising the possibility that flatus incontinence could be a precursor to fecal incontinence. As clinical and physiological findings are different from healthy controls (including the presence of visceral hypersensitivity), isolated flatus incontinence should be considered a distinct clinical entity (like other functional GI disorders), or possibly part of an incontinence spectrum rather than purely a normal phenomenon. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B946 . INCONTINENCIA DE FLATOS E INCONTINENCIA FECAL UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS Y CONTROLES: ANTECEDENTES:La incontinencia de gases puede ser un síntoma molesto que afecta la calidad de vida de los pacientes incluso en ausencia de incontinencia fecal. Aún no está claro si la incontinencia de flatos aislada representa parte del espectro de la incontinencia fecal verdadera o una condición separada con una fisiopatología poco clara.OBJETIVO:Evaluar las características clínicas y la fisiología anorrectal en mujeres que presentan incontinencia grave aislada de flatos, en comparación con la incontinencia fecal y mujeres sanas asintomáticas.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles de datos recolectados prospectivamente.AJUSTE:Los datos de los participantes se obtuvieron de una sola Unidad de Neurogastroenterología terciaria en Sydney, Australia.PACIENTES:Se analizaron los datos de 34 pacientes con incontinencia grave aislada de flatos, junto con 127 mujeres con incontinencia fecal y 44 mujeres sanas.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados primarios fueron clínicos (incluidas las variables demográficas, obstétricas y de síntomas), así como las diferencias fisiológicas entre los tres grupos.RESULTADOS:Los pacientes con incontinencia de flatos eran significativamente más jóvenes (media de 39 años frente a 63 años, p = 0,0001), tenían un historial más corto de experimentar sus síntomas (p = 0,0001) y tenían heces más duras que los pacientes con incontinencia fecal (p = 0,02). Aquellos con incontinencia de flatos tenían antecedentes obstétricos adversos y fisiología anorrectal alterada (motora y sensorial, específicamente hipersensibilidad rectal); aunque en menor medida que las pacientes con incontinencia fecal.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo y tamaño de muestra modesto.CONCLUSIONES:La fisiología anorrectal se vio afectada en las pacientes con incontinencia de flatos en comparación con las controles sanos, pero en menor medida que en aquellas con incontinencia fecal, lo que plantea la posibilidad de que la incontinencia de flatos pueda ser un precursor de la incontinencia fecal. Dado que los hallazgos clínicos y fisiológicos son diferentes a los de los controles sanos (incluida la presencia de hipersensibilidad visceral), la incontinencia de flatos aislada debe considerarse como una entidad clínica distinta (al igual que otros trastornos gastrointestinales funcionales), o posiblemente como parte de un espectro de incontinencia en lugar de un trastorno puramente a un fenómeno normal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B946 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Experiencing multiple concurrent functional gastrointestinal disorders is associated with greater symptom severity and worse quality of life in chronic constipation and defecation disorders.

BACKGROUND: Recent community-based studies have demonstrated that experiencing multiple concurrent functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) is associated with increased somatization, worse quality of life (QoL), and greater health care utilization. However, the presence of multiple overlapping FGIDs is unstudied specifically in chronic constipation and functional defecation disorders (FDD). We investigated the prevalence and impact of additional nonconstipation FGIDs on constipation severity, anorectal physiology, anxiety and depression, and QoL, in patients with chronic constipation and FDD. METHODS: One-hundred and forty-six consecutive patients with functional constipation or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C/IBS-M) presenting to a tertiary referral Neurogastroenterology Clinic were studied. In addition, 90/146 (62%) qualified for FDD due to abnormal defecatory physiology. Patients underwent comprehensive baseline assessment comprising anorectal physiology, Bristol Stool Chart, Rome questionnaire, Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom (KESS) constipation score, Hospital Anxiety, and Depression Scale, and modified 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for QoL. Additional FGIDs were diagnosed using Rome III criteria. KEY RESULTS: Additional nonconstipation FGIDs occurred in 85% of patients, with a mean of 2.1 (SD 1.6) additional FGIDs. Patients with four or more additional FGIDs experienced greater constipation severity compared to those with no additional FGIDs (p = 0.004). Comorbid FGIDs were associated with worse SF-36 scores for physical functioning (p < 0.001), role-physical (p = 0.005), bodily pain (p < 0.001), vitality (p = 0.008), social functioning (p = 0.004), and mental health index (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Functional gastrointestinal disorders comorbidity is highly prevalent in chronic constipation and defecatory disorders, and this is associated with greater symptom severity and worse QoL. Multimodal treatments targeting comorbid FGIDs may lead to superior outcomes.

Volumetric Rectal Perception Testing: Is It Clinically Relevant? Results From a Large Patient Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal perception testing is a recommended component of anorectal physiology testing. Although recent consensus (London) guidelines suggested criteria for categorizing hyporectal and hyper-rectal sensitivity, these were based on scant evidence. Moreover, data regarding diagnostic capabilities and clinical utility of rectal perception testing are lacking. The aims of this study were to determine the association between rectal perception testing and both clinical and physiological variables to enhance the analysis and interpretation of real-life test results. METHODS: Prospectively documented data from 1,618 (92% female) patients referred for anorectal physiology testing were analyzed for 3 rectal perception thresholds (first, urge, and maximal tolerated). Normal values derived from healthy female subjects were used to categorize each threshold into hyposensitive and hypersensitive to examine the clinical relevance of this categorization. RESULTS: There was poor to moderate agreement between the 3 thresholds. Older age, male sex, and constipation were associated with higher perception thresholds, whereas irritable bowel syndrome, fecal incontinence, connective tissue disease, and pelvic radiation were associated with lower perception thresholds to some, but not all, thresholds (P < 0.01 on multivariate analysis for all). The clinical utility and limitations of categorizing thresholds into "hypersensitivity" and "hyposensitivity" were determined. DISCUSSION: Commonly practiced rectal perception testing is correlated with several disease states and thus has clinical relevance. However, most disease states were correlated with 2 or even only 1 abnormal threshold, and agreement between thresholds was limited. This may suggest each threshold measures different pathophysiological pathways. We suggest all 3 thresholds be measured and reported separately in routine clinical testing.

Factors Associated With Response to Anorectal Biofeedback Therapy in Patients With Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Anorectal biofeedback (BF) is commonly used to treat patients with fecal incontinence (FI), but demand usually exceeds availability. It is therefore important to identify patients most likely to respond to BF treatment. We aimed to identify pre-treatment clinical or physiologic factors that might be used to predict completion and success of BF in women with FI. METHODS: We analyzed data from 400 women with FI (mean age, 61 ± 14 y) undergoing instrumental BF in a tertiary care setting from 2003 through 2016. All patients completed questionnaires before BF, including Rome and the hospital anxiety and depression scale questionnaires. Histories of medication use, surgery, medical conditions, and bowel pattern were recorded, urge was assessed, and patients kept stool diaries. Before and after treatment (6 weekly sessions with a gastroenterologist-supervised nurse specialist, 4 involving instrumented anorectal biofeedback), patients were examined by a physician and fecal incontinence severity index and visual analogue scale scores were recorded. The main outcome measure was response to therapy, defined as improvement of 50% or more in weekly FI episodes at the end of BF compared with before BF. RESULTS: The BF treatment was completed by 363 women (91%); of these, 62 had low baseline symptom frequency (no FI episodes in the 2 weeks before BF). Younger age was associated with failure to complete treatment. Of the 301 patients remaining, 202 patients (67%) had a response to therapy; among these women, urge FI was associated with response at end of BF, but not at follow up (6 months after therapy). Baseline severity of symptom scores and quality of life measures were associated with greater improvement in the same variable at the end of BF and after 6 months. Patients with low baseline symptom frequency improved in all secondary outcome measures, similar to patients with higher baseline symptom frequency. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of 363 women with FI, approximately two-thirds had a response to BF treatment. Urge FI was the only baseline variable associated with response. Baseline severity of symptoms and quality of life measures were associated with greater improvement in the same variable, but not overall response. It is therefore a challenge to select treatment for patients with FI.

A novel combined anorectal biofeedback and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation protocol for treating fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Fecal incontinence (FI) is a common, debilitating condition that causes major impact on quality of life for those affected. Non-surgical treatment options include anorectal biofeedback therapy (BF) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), usually performed separately. The aims of the current study were to determine the feasibility, tolerability, safety, and efficacy of performing a combined BF and PTNS treatment protocol. METHODS: Female patients with urge FI were offered a novel pilot program combining BF with PTNS. The treatment protocol consisted of 13 weekly sessions: an educational session, followed by 5 combined BF and PTNS sessions, 6 PTNS and a final combined session. Anorectal physiology and clinical outcomes were assessed throughout the program. For efficacy, patients were compared with BF only historical FI patients matched for age, parity, and severity of symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 12/13 (93%) patients completed the full program. Overall attendance rate was 93% (157/169 sessions). Patient comfort score with treatment was rated high at 9.8/10 (SD 0.7) for PTNS and 8.6/10 (SD 1.7) for the BF component. No major side effects were reported. A reduction of at least 50% in FI episodes/week was achieved by 58% of patients by visit 6, and 92% by visit 13. No physiology changes were evident immediately following PTNS compared with before, but pressure during sustained anal squeeze improved by the end of the treatment course. Comparing outcomes with historical matched controls, reductions in weekly FI episodes were more pronounced in the BF only group at visit 6, but not week 13. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, concurrent PTNS and anorectal biofeedback therapy has been shown to be feasible, comfortable, and low risk. The combined protocol is likely to be an effective treatment for FI, but future research could focus on optimizing patient selection.

Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?

BACKGROUND: Instrumented anorectal biofeedback (BF) improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence and defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation. However, demand for BF greatly outweighs availability, so refinement of the BF protocol, in terms of the time and resources required, is of importance. Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of an abbreviated BF protocol in patients with defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation and/or faecal incontinence compared to standard BF. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients (n = 31; age 54 ± 15; 29 females; 61% functional constipation) undergoing an intentionally abbreviated BF protocol, and compared in a 1:2 ratio with 62 age, gender and functional anorectal disorder-matched control patients undergoing a standard BF. Outcomes included change in symptoms, physiology, patient satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: On intention to treat, patients in both protocols showed significant improvement in symptom scores and the magnitude did not differ between groups. Impact on quality of life, satisfaction and control over bowel movements improved in both protocols, but satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the standard BF protocol (p = 0.009). Physiological parameters were unchanged after BF apart from improvement in rectal sensation in the standard BF group compared to abbreviated BF (p ⩽ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Abbreviated anorectal BF offered to patients travelling from far away was not different to a standard BF in providing substantial, at least short term, improvements in symptoms of constipation and faecal incontinence, quality of life and feeling of control over bowel movements. Refinement of the standard BF protocol according to individual patient phenotypes and desired outcomes warrants further study in order to maximize efficacy and improve access for patients.

Anorectal physiology in health: A randomized trial to determine the optimum catheter for the balloon expulsion test.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion test (BET) are pivotal in investigation of anorectal disorders. There is controversy, however, about normal values and optimum methodology for performing these tests. Our aims were to compare BET using three different balloons and to establish normal values for ARM and BET in health. METHODS: Forty-four female healthy subjects (mean age 56 ± 12 years) underwent ARM, followed by BET which was performed in a private toilet using three different catheters (party balloon, Foley catheter and a commercially available catheter) in a single-blinded randomized order. Outcome measures were time to balloon expulsion and comprehensive measures of anal sphincter function, the push maneuver and rectal sensation. KEY RESULTS: The Foley catheter took longer to expel compared to both party and commercial balloons (both pairwise P < 0.001) with a wider distribution of results (P < 0.001). Ten of 40 healthy subjects could not expel the Foley catheter within 120 seconds. On ARM, older age was associated with lower resting anal sphincter pressure (ρ = -0.3, P = 0.05) and lower anal squeeze pressure (ρ = -0.3, P = 0.05). Having at least one vaginal delivery (compared to none) was associated with lower anal squeeze pressures (P = 0.03) and a smaller difference between cough and squeeze pressures (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: A commercial balloon exhibited superior results in vivo compared to the Foley catheter without the concerns of latex allergy and quality control present with the use of a party balloon. Normal values for high-resolution water-perfused manometry have been established and an effect seen for age and parity.

Gastrointestinal symptoms in spinal cord injury: relationships with level of injury and psychologic factors.

INTRODUCTION: Previous surveys of gastrointestinal symptoms after spinal cord injury have not used validated questionnaires and have not focused on the full spectrum of such symptoms and their relationship to factors, such as level of spinal cord injury and psychologic dysfunction. This study was designed to detail the spectrum and prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in spinal cord injury and to determine clinical and psychologic factors associated with such symptoms. METHODS: Established spinal cord injury patients (>12 months) randomly selected from a spinal cord injury database completed the following three questionnaires: 1) Rome II Integrative Questionnaire, 2) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and 3) Burwood Bowel Dysfunction after spinal cord injury. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients participated. The prevalence of abdominal bloating and constipation were 22 and 46 percent, respectively. Bloating was associated with cervical (odds ratio = 9.5) and lumbar (odds ratio = 12.1) level but not with thoracic level of injury. Constipation was associated with a higher level of injury (cervical odds ratio = 5.6 vs. lumbar) but not with psychologic factors. In contrast, abdominal pain (33 percent) and fecal incontinence (41 percent) were associated with higher levels of anxiety (odds ratio = 6.8, and odds ratio = 2.4) but not with the level of injury. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence and wide spectrum of gastrointestinal symptoms in spinal cord injury. Abdominal bloating and constipation are primarily related to specific spinal cord levels of injury, whereas abdominal pain and fecal incontinence are primarily associated with higher levels of anxiety. Based on our findings, further physiologic and psychologic research studies in spinal cord injury patients should lead to more rational management strategies for the common gastrointestinal symptoms in spinal cord injury.

Modulatory influences on antegrade and retrograde tonic reflexes in the colon and rectum.

Tonic reflexes in the colon and rectum are likely to be important in health and in disorders of gastrointestinal function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fasting and postprandial "colorectal" and "rectocolic" reflexes in response to 2-min isobaric distensions of the colon and rectum, accounting for enteric sensation, compliance, and distending balloon volume. In 14 healthy fasting subjects, a dual barostat assembly was positioned (descending colon and rectum). A 2-min phasic distension was performed in the colon and rectum in random order while the opposing balloon volume was recorded. Sensation (phasic distension) and compliance (ramp distension) were also determined. The experiment was repeated postprandially. Colonic distension resulted in significant rectal tonic contraction in the fasting (rectal volume change: -35.4 +/- 8.4 ml, P < 0.01) and postprandial (-22.2 +/- 8.4 ml, P < 0.01) states. After adjustment for colonic sensitivity, for compliance, and for distending balloon volume, the rectal volume change remained significant; the extent of the tonic response, however, correlated significantly with increasing pain score (P < 0.01). In contrast, rectal distension did not produce a significant tonic response in the colon (fasting: -6.5 +/- 7.3 ml; postprandial: 2.7 +/- 7.3 ml), either unadjusted or adjusted for rectal sensitivity, compliance, and distending balloon volume. In conclusion, the colorectal reflex, but not the rectocolic reflex, can be readily demonstrated both before and after a meal in response to a 2-min isobaric distension in the colon and rectum, respectively. Although the presence of the colorectal reflex does not depend on colonic sensitivity or the volume of the distending colonic balloon, these factors modulate the reflex, especially in the fasting state.