Background: Evaluation of the anorectal function, clinically, structurally, and functionally, in patients with faecal incontinence should ensure appropriate and individual treatment. Methods: Two hundred and twenty-six patients with faecal incontinence were reviewed regarding disease history and results of anorectal physiological tests and anal ultrasonography. Results: The mean age was 54 years, and 191 patients (85%) were female. Sixty-two patients had passive faecal incontinence only, 49 had urge faecal incontinence only, and 115 had both passive and urge faecal incontinence. Patients with passive faecal incontinence only had a significantly higher voluntary contraction pressure and less external sphincter abnormalities than patients with urge faecal incontinence or both passive and urge faecal incontinence. The structural abnormalities of the internal and external anal sphincters identified on anal ultrasonography were significantly associated with a low maximum resting pressure and with a low voluntary contraction pressure, respectively. The causes identified for this faecal incontinence were: in 90 patients idiopathic, in 76 obstetric injury, in 36 internal anal sphincter degeneration, in 20 anal surgical injury, in 6 rectal prolapse, and in 9 patients miscellaneous. Conclusions: The anal sphincter structure as demonstrated by ultrasonography was closely related to the anorectal function, as determined by anorectal physiological tests, and the observations from these were reflected in the range of patient-reported symptoms. Anal ultrasonography and anorectal physiological tests are useful tools, enabling us to identify the mechanisms and causes of faecal incontinence in at least 60% of the patients.

Keywords:
Faecal incontinence, Anorectal physiological examinations, faecal incontinence, Anal ultrasonography, faecal incontinence
1.
Nelson R, Norton N, Cautley E, Furner S: Community-based prevalence of anal incontinence. JAMA 1995;274:559–561.
2.
Talley NJ, O’Keefe EA, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ III: Prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in the elderly: A population-based study. Gastroenterology 1992;102:895–901.
3.
Nakanishi N, Tatara K, Naramura H, Fujiwara H, Takashima, Fukuda H: Urinary and fecal incontinence in a community-residing older population in Japan. J Am Geriatr Soc 1997;45:215–219.
4.
Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, Whitehead WE: AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 1999;116:735–760.
5.
Bartram CI, Sultan AH: Anal endosonography in faecal incontinence. Gut 1995;37:4–6.
6.
Bartram CI: Normal anatomy of the anal canal; in Bartram CI, Frudinger A (eds): Handbook of Anal Endosonography. Petersfield, Wrightson Biomedical Publishing, 1997, pp 19–41.
7.
Engel AF, Kamm MA, Bartram CI, Nicholls RJ: Relationship of symptoms in faecal incontinence to specific sphincter abnormalities. Int J Colorectal Dis 1995;10:152–155.
8.
Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA, Bartram CI: Primary degeneration of the internal anal sphincter as a cause of passive faecal incontinence. Lancet 1997;349:612–615.
9.
Parellada CM, Miller AS, Williamson ME, Johnston D: Paradoxical high anal resting pressures in men with idiopathic fecal seepage. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:593–597.
10.
Falk PM, Blatchford GJ, Cali RL, Christensen MA, Thorson AG: Transanal ultrasound and manometry in the evaluation of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:468–472.
11.
Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI: Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1905–1911.
12.
Mimura T, Kuramoto S, Kaminishi M, Kamm MA: An analysis of 65 patients with fecal incontinence due to obstetric injury – a comparison between early and late onset groups. J Jpn Soc Coloproctol 2003;56:325–332.
13.
Tsunoda A, Shibusawa M, Kamiyama G, Kusano M, Shimizu Y, Yanaihara T: The effect of vaginal delivery on the pelvic floor. Surg Today 1999;29:1243–1247.
14.
Williams AB, Malouf AJ, Bartram CI, Halligan S, Kamm MA, Kmiot WA: Assessment of external anal sphincter morphology in idiopathic fecal incontinence with endocoil magnetic resonance imaging. Dig Dis Sci 2001;46:1466–1471.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
2004
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.