William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Fecal Incontinence
William E Whitehead Ph DWilliam E. Whitehead, Ph.D.Professor of Medicine (Gastroenterology),
Adjunct Professor of OBGYN (Urogynecology), Co-Director UNC Center for
Functional GI and Motility Disorders
Definition
• Uncontrolled passage of solid or liquid stool in subject with mental age >4 years
It is contro ersial hether incontinence for flat s• It is controversial whether incontinence for flatus should be included. Convention is to define:Anal incontinence (AI) includes accidental loss of gas;
however, 11% of men and women report accidental loss of flatus on a daily basis
FI is limited to loss of solid, liquid, or mucusq
• Staining or “streaking” of underwear, sometimes called soiling, is common and is not addressed by survey definitions of FI
2
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
1
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Prevalence of FI is strongly associated with age and weakly associated with sex
24Females Males
8
12
16
20
nco
nti
nen
ce P
erce
nt
8.9% 7.7%
0
4
Fec
al In
4
20-29 30-39 40-54 55-69 >70 20-29 30-39 40-54 55-69 >70
Age (years)
Prevalence in nursing homes is 48%
FI occurs at least weekly in 2.7% and at least daily in 0.8%
8Females Males
3
4
5
6
7
t o
f F
emal
es o
r M
ales
5
0
1
2
Per
cen
t
1-3/mo 1/wk 2-6/wk >1/day 1-3/mo 1/wk 2-6/wk >1/day
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
2
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Most accidents consist of liquid stool
8 Females Males
3
4
5
6
7
of
Fem
ales
or
Mal
es
6
0
1
2
3
Per
cen
t
Mucus Liquid Solid Mucus Liquid Solid
Quality of Life Impact
• Embarrassment
– Self-imposed social isolation
– Stigmatization
• Anxiety and depression
• Burden on family care-givers
• Contributes to nursing home referral
7
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
3
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
FI is Under-reportedDunivan et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202:493.e1-6
10
Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors Whitehead et al. Gastroenterol 2009;137:512-7
Variable Women:OR (95% CI)
Men:OR (95% CI)OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Age (10 year interval) 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) 1.2 (1.1, 1.4)
Watery or mushy stools 2.8 (1.9, 4.1) 4.8 (1.9, 11.9)
>21 Stools per week 2.3 (1.1, 4.9)
Unable to do physical activity 2.2 (1.1, 4.5)
1 Chronic illness (vs. none) 1.9 (1.3, 2.9)
>2 Chronic illness (vs. none) 2.2 (1.2, 4.1)
Poor self-rated health 1.8 (1.2, 2.7)
Urinary incontinence 1.6 (1.0, 2.7) 2.6 (1.5, 4.6)11
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
4
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
GI symptoms and disorders as risk factors for FI
Risk Factor Prevalence ofRisk Factor
OR for FI or Percent with FI
Comments
Diarrhea 6% 7% OR 2 4 4 9 OR 2 3 in NHDiarrhea 6% -7% OR 2.4-4.9 OR 2.3 in NHConstipation: 3% - 9%Slow transit No associationDyssyn Defec Probable risk Limited data
Urgency 14% (women) OR 5.6-8.3 Limited dataIBS 10% - 15% OR 2-8IBD <0.01% ~25% (pre-op)Hemorrhoids 4% - 20% 48% - 63% Mainly soilingRectal prolapse 0.4% OR ~2 Mainly soilingDescent of perineum
? 15% - 60% Limited data
12
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
5
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Most common etiologies for FI
Diagnostic evaluation
• History Characterize type of FI Characterize type of FI identify diarrhea & constipation as contributing factors Assess medical, surgical, and obstetric history
• Physical exam• Anorectal manometry and pelvic floor EMG• Endosonography or MRI of anal sphinctersg p y p• Other tests as indicated (defecography, balloon
evacuation test)
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
6
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Resting and squeeze pressures in anal canal measured by stationary pull-through
Rectal
5 4 3 2 1 0 cm 5 4 3 2 1 0 cm
RectalPress
AAnalCanal
AnalCanal
AnalCanal
AnalCanal
High Resolution Anorectal Manometry Noelting et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1530-6
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
7
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Anorectal Manometry also measures
• Sensory thresholds– First sensation– Urge to defecate– Maximum tolerated volume
• Compliance of rectum• (Rectoanal inhibitory reflex)• (Rectoanal inhibitory reflex)• (Response to straining)
Anal UltrasoundIn 37 year oldWith incontinence2nd obstetricalinjury
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
8
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Conservative Management
• EducationEducation Teach mechanisms of continence using anatomy
drawings Discuss importance of stabilizing stool consistency Discuss triggers: foods, stress, lifting, coughing
• Toileting schedule • OTC medications to normalize stool
consistency• Pelvic floor exercises
Effects of conservative management Heymen et al. Disi Colon Rectum 2009;52:1730-7
• 20% of patients reported adequate relief after 4 weeks• 60% decrease in average frequency of FI• Benefits well maintained: 83% still reported adequate relief at 3 mo FU71% at 12 months
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
9
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Drugs for diarrhea-related FI
Drug Dose CommentsDrug Dose Comments
Loperamide 2-4 mg average (titrate)
No CNS action; may cause constipation
Diphenoxylate +Atropine
2 X 2.5 mg tabs Less effective than loperamide, more side-effects than loperamideloperamide
Amitriptyline 20 mg Decreases urgency & frequency
Psyllium & gum agar
Up to 15 g/day Milder cases, elderly
Double-blind cross-over study comparing loperamide, codeine, & diphenoxylatePalmer KR, et al. Gastroenterology 1980;79:1272-1275
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% o
f Gro
up w
ith
inco
ntin
ence
/urg
ency
0.40.60.8
11.21.41.6
# of
Sid
e-E
ffec
ts
* *
0%
10%
i
Incontinence Urgency0
0.2
Side-Effects
Loperamide Codeine Diphenoxylate*Loperamide significantly better than diphenoxylate
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
10
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Biofeedback compared to PF exercise Heymen et al. Dis Colon Rectum 2009;52:1730-7
Biofeedback Treatment Protocol
• Six one-hour sessions for Biofeedback or pelvic floor exercises
• Both described to patients as “effective behavioral treatments”
• 1 on 1 with therapist every 2 weeks
• Pelvic floor exercises performed by both groupsp y g p
• Education, medications, and behavioral strategies continued from run-in
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
11
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Percent Reporting Adequate Relief (Intent to Treat analysis)
P=.001
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80% 77%
66%61%
41% 41%38% Biofdbk
Kegels
0%
10%
20%
30%
3 mo FU 6 mo FU 12 mo FU
Adequate Relief % in Patients % Completely Continentwho Completed Training at 3 Months FU
Outcomes of Biofeedback
40%
60%
80%
100%
85%
49%
40%
60%
80%
100%
66%
48%
0%
20%
40%
Biofdbk Kegel0%
20%
40%
Biofdbk Kegel
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
12
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Biofeedback Summary
• Heymen study suggests significant benefit of bi f db k d t PFE lbiofeedback compared to PFE alone
• Other RCTs have not found a significant difference• Outcomes are strongly influenced by skill and
experience of the biofeedback therapist
Triple-Target Treatment (3T) Schwander et al. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:1007-16
• Patients train for 20 min twice daily at home• Morning session alternates electrical stimulation at
1000 Hz with relaxation, contraction, and relaxation• Evening session: Patient voluntarily squeezes and
EMG response above a threshold triggers 1000 Hz ES h h lwhich triggers a larger contraction
• All training is done at home for 6-9 month duration
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
13
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Triple Target Treatment vs. EMG BiofeedbackSchwandner et al. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:1007-16
12Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Scores
4
6
8
10
12P=.0024
0
2
Baseline 3 Months 6 Months 9 Months
EMG Biofeedback 3T Treatment
Tibial Nerve ES George et al. Br J Surg 2013;100:330-8
• Stainless steel needle inserted between margin of tibi d l l b t 3 fi b dthtibia and soleus muscle about 3 finger breadths above medial malleolus; reference on sole of foot
• Increase ES current until toes are splayed and tingling sensation occurs. Use maximum tolerable current.
• Alternative technique is to apply adhesive electrodes to skin over tibial nerve. Surface electrodes were not found to be effective.
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
14
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Comparison of cutaneous, trans-cutaneous, and sham tibial nerve stimulation
George et al.Br J Surgery 2013;100:330-8
82%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Responder = 50% reduction in FI P=.035
82%
46%
13%0%
10%20%30%
Needle Surface Sham
Sacral Nerve Stimulation• Barbed electrodes are inserted into sacral nerve with
dlneedle• Electrode location is selected at which ES causes
sphincter contraction• Trial stimulation: the electrodes are connected to an
external stimulator for 2-week periodexternal stimulator for 2-week period• If there is a 50% decrease in frequency of FI, a
permanent stimulator is implanted beneath skin
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
15
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Changes in FI episodes/week Tjandra et al. Dis Colon Rectum 2008;41:494-502
12
* *
4
6
8
10
SNSControl
0
2
4
Baseline Test Stim 3 mo FU 12 mo FU
Summary for Tjandra Study
• For ITT analysis, 58% of enrolled patients had at l t 75% i t d 42% ti tleast 75% improvement and 42% were continent
• FIQOL improved significantly more with SNS• Anal manometry showed no improvement in
resting or squeeze pressure. Mechanism is unclear.• Results strongly support the efficacy of SNS• Results strongly support the efficacy of SNS • Adverse events included pain at incision in 6 but no
infections requiring explant
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
16
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
RCT: Efficacy of Dextranomer InjectionsGraf et al. Lancet 2011;377:997-1003
• Compared 1-2 injections (4-8 ml) of p jdextranomer to sham injection
• No selection for passive FI• At 6 months, 52% of active vs. 31%
of sham had >50 reduction in FI• FIQoL improved more in active group
At 12 th 69% till h d >25%• At 12 months, 69% still had >25% reduction
• AEs were pain (14%), bleeding (7%)• 2/136 had SAE of abscess
Summary: Prevalence & Risk Factors• FI is very common
– 9% of women and 8% of men9% of women and 8% of men– Weekly in 2.7%, daily in 1%– Less than 30% report the symptom to their MD– Physicians rarely screen for FI
• Strongest risk factors: – Ageg– Diarrhea and urgency– Comorbid medical disorders– GI and neurological disorders
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
17
William E. Whitehead, PhD, MACG
Diagnosis• History and digital rectal exam
Test for:• Test for:– Anal canal squeeze pressure– Anal canal resting pressure– Sensation– Compliance (reservoir capacity)
• Standard tests are – Anorectal pressure measurements– Ultrasound of anal canal
Treatment
• 1st line treatment is education & meds to normalize stool consistency; expect about 60% improvement butstool consistency; expect about 60% improvement but low cure rate
• Biofeedback – effective but operator dependent
• Electrical stimulation – Low frequency ES in anal canal is not effective
Triple target therapy combining electrical stimulation with– Triple-target therapy combining electrical stimulation with EMG biofeedback is well supported
– Tibial nerve stimulation is promising
– Sacral nerve stimulation is strongly supported
• Dextranomer injections supported by one RCT
ACG Regional Postgraduate Course - Williamsburg, VA Copyright 2013 American College of Gastroenterology
18
Top Related