eMedicine Specialties > Obstetrics and Gynecology > Prolapse and Incontinence

Fecal Incontinence: Workup

Author: Sonia Ranganath, MD, Resident Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts Medical Center
Coauthor(s): Tanaz R Ferzandi, MD, Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts University School of Medicine; Division Director, Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Tufts Medical Center
Contributor Information and Disclosures

Updated: Sep 30, 2009

Workup

Laboratory Studies

  • Surgical repair for fecal incontinence is usually an elective procedure. Evaluation and treatment of anemia, infection, or other abnormalities indicated by findings from a complete blood cell count should be initiated prior to surgical repair.
  • A pregnancy test should be performed at or near the time of surgery on every female patient who may be pregnant.

Imaging Studies

  • Ultrasonography
    • The standard diagnostic imaging study for the anal sphincters is transanal or endoanal ultrasonography. Much of the early work on endoanal ultrasonography was performed at St. Marks Hospital in the United Kingdom by Law, Burnett, and Sultan et al. Multiple reports have qualified ultrasonography as the criterion standard in the diagnostic evaluation of the anal sphincters.33,34,35,36
    • Ultrasonography allows the provider to perform a real-time, 360-degree evaluation of both the internal and external anal sphincters. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography findings are 98-100% for the external anal sphincter and 95.5% for the internal anal sphincter. Burnett et al have shown that 90% of women presenting with anal incontinence and a history of a vaginal delivery had ultrasonographic evidence of damage to the external anal sphincter, internal anal sphincter, or both.37
    • Endoanal ultrasonography is performed in the left lateral or lithotomy position. The lithotomy position in females allows for the evaluation of other pelvic support defects.
    • Traditionally, 3 regions of the rectum are evaluated ultrasonographically. The areas of focus are distal, where only the external anal sphincter is observed (Media file 1); at the level where both the internal and external anal sphincters can be observed in the mid anal canal (Media file 2); and proximal at the level of the levators (pubococcygeus) (Media file 3).

      Fecal incontinence. External anal sphincter showi...

      Fecal incontinence. External anal sphincter showing normal narrowing anteriorly.

      [ CLOSE WINDOW ]
      Fecal incontinence. External anal sphincter showi...

      Fecal incontinence. External anal sphincter showing normal narrowing anteriorly.


      Fecal incontinence. Ultrasound of mid anal canal ...

      Fecal incontinence. Ultrasound of mid anal canal taken with the patient in the low lithotomy position showing intact internal and external anal sphincters.

      [ CLOSE WINDOW ]
      Fecal incontinence. Ultrasound of mid anal canal ...

      Fecal incontinence. Ultrasound of mid anal canal taken with the patient in the low lithotomy position showing intact internal and external anal sphincters.


      Fecal incontinence. Internal anal sphincter at th...

      Fecal incontinence. Internal anal sphincter at the level of the levators. The levators are demonstrated by the U-shaped echogenic band posteriorly.

      [ CLOSE WINDOW ]
      Fecal incontinence. Internal anal sphincter at th...

      Fecal incontinence. Internal anal sphincter at the level of the levators. The levators are demonstrated by the U-shaped echogenic band posteriorly.

    • Normal thickness for the external anal sphincter is consistently described as 8.3 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6-9 mm). Mean internal anal sphincter thickness is described as 6.5 mm (95% CI, 5.8-7.2 mm), although reports vary from 1-3 mm to 10 mm based on modality. Inflammatory disorders can increase the thickness of these sphincters.38
    • The external anal sphincter appears as a hyperechoic ring that is circumferential. It is striated muscle, which is echogenic in nature. The internal anal sphincter is composed of smooth muscle and appears as a hypoechoic or sonolucent ring that is medial to the external anal sphincter. It can be viewed from the level of the levators to just inside the anal verge. The puborectalis muscle appears as a hyperechoic U-shaped muscle approximately 4 cm into the anal canal (Media file 3).
    • Tjandra and colleagues evaluated patients with ultrasonography of the anal sphincters and EMG. They found that ultrasonography helped identify both internal and external sphincter defects with 100% accuracy compared to EMG findings, with considerably less discomfort. They state that ultrasonography is preferable to EMG in mapping anal sphincter defects, especially for evaluation of the internal anal sphincter.39,40

Diagnostic Procedures

  • Anal manometry
    • Anal manometry is used to evaluate both the resting and squeeze pressures of the rectum. It can also be used to evaluate the rectoanal inhibitory reflex, rectal capacity, and rectal compliance.
    • Normal values for manometry vary among institutions. Currently, no uniformly accepted standard exists for performing manometry, and what is considered typical pressure is also quite variable. Normal resting pressures are 40-70 mm Hg (55-95 cm water) from Wexner and 60 cm water (standard deviation [SD], 20 cm water) from St. Marks Physiology Unit in London. Normal squeeze pressures are 100-180 mm Hg (136-244 cm water) from Wexner and 100 cm water (SD, 30 cm water) from St. Marks Physiology Unit in London.
    • Mean resting and mean squeeze pressures are lower in women who have had a vaginal delivery, regardless of sphincter disruption. Low manometric pressures are not predictive of anal sphincter defects. Women with known sphincter defects tend to have lower mean resting pressures; however, mean squeeze pressures may be unaffected. Squeeze pressures are not significantly related to the presence of an external anal sphincter defect. Tetzschner et al found decreased pressures in continent and incontinent women after vaginal delivery. Both groups had low pressures compared to controls.15
    • The majority of studies that evaluate fecal incontinence in women use manometry as part of their assessment. The results of these studies are variable, and no patients have forgone surgical repair based on a finding of low manometric pressures.
    • Several studies are available that demonstrate that manometry results are not able to help predict surgical outcomes for anal sphincter repairs. Rasmussen and colleagues found that patients with incontinence persisting after surgical repair had lower anal maximum squeeze pressures compared to continent patients. In patients who are continent after surgery, no difference in anal pressures existed before and after surgery. Felt-Bersma et al found that manometry is not valuable when comparing an individual patient's pressure to the reference range because of the large variability in the reference range. They suggest that evaluation of an individual's pressure changes preoperatively and postoperatively makes more sense.41 Several investigators have found improvement in manometry pressures postoperatively.
  • Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency
    • PNTML helps evaluate the length of time required for a fixed electrical stimulus to travel along the pudendal nerve from the ischial spine to the anal verge. Findings reflect the myelin function of the peripheral nerve, and the test allows for the evaluation of pelvic floor neuromuscular integrity. The pudendal nerve is stimulated at the ischial spine transanally. The latency period between stimulation of the nerve and evoked response of the muscle is measured. Any damage to the neuromuscular unit results in the prolongation of the latency. Normal latency has been described as 2 milliseconds (SD, 0.2 ms).
    • Several studies have found that prolongation of PNTML occurs after uncomplicated vaginal delivery. PNTML approaches the reference range at three months postpartum; however, Tetzschner et al found a significant and persistent prolongation of PNTML between incontinent and continent women three months postpartum.15 In addition, the only predictor for the development of anal incontinence at 2-4 years postpartum in women who had rupture of the anal sphincter was abnormal PNTML.

      Ryhammer and colleagues evaluated the long-term effects of vaginal delivery on anorectal function and found that PNTML increased with parity.21 They found the greatest change in PNTML between the second and third deliveries; however, the range of values within groups was large. In a separate study, Tetzschner et al also found a wide range of values within incontinent and continent groups. The incontinent group values ranged from 1.35-3 milliseconds, and the continent group values ranged from 1.44-2.47 milliseconds.16
    • Many investigators have suggested that PNTML is the most significant predictor of functional outcome of a sphincteroplasty. Gilliland et al found that prolonged latency was correlated with outcome. In their series, only 16% of patients with pudendal latency greater than 2.2 milliseconds subjectively described their results as successful (excellent or good, based on telephone interview).42 In a study of patients with unilaterally prolonged latencies (2 ms; SD, 0.2 ms), Sangwan et al found that only 1 of 7 patients who underwent sphincteroplasty had improvement in their incontinence score. Six patients had either (1) no improvement in incontinence score but less frequent incontinent episodes or (2) no improvement at all.43
    • The difficulty with interpreting findings in the literature is that no consensus has been reached for agreed-upon standard and nonstandard values. Also, variability exists in how PNTML correlates with other physiologic findings. All of the studies previously mentioned used the St. Marks electrode produced by Dantec.
    • Fynes et al considered latency to be prolonged if longer than 2.4 milliseconds in duration.44 While evaluating the neurophysiologic changes in fecal incontinence, Osterberg et al used a latency period of longer than 2.5 milliseconds duration (based on a mean of 2 ms and 2 SD to reduce their false-positive rate) as an abnormal value.45 In the same study, they found no differences in resting pressures, incremental pressures, or rectal sensibility in patients with unilaterally or bilaterally prolonged PNTML compared to patients with normal PNTML. They question the routine use of PNTML in the investigation of patients with fecal incontinence.
    • As with anal manometry, prolonged PNTML values have not been used as a reason to deny surgical repair. Chen et al found that in patients with prolonged latencies, surgical repair of sphincter defects resulted in improvement of incontinence scores.46 Felt-Bersma et al, when evaluating anorectal function and ultrasonographic images after sphincter repair, found no relationship between preoperative neurologic function (based on EMG and PNTML findings) and clinical outcome. Acknowledging the fact that PNTML has contributed greatly to the understanding of anorectal pathophysiology, Felt-Bersma's group suggests that PNTML has no place in the routine preoperative assessment of patients. They go one step further by suggesting that withholding a sphincter repair from a patient with a prolonged PNTML may be unethical.41
    • Although prolonged PNTML indicates pudendal neuropathy, normal latency does not exclude nerve injury because only the fastest remaining conducting fibers are recorded. Also, overlap has been shown to exist in the innervation of the external sphincter.
  • Electromyelogram
    • EMG helps evaluate the electrical activity generated by muscle fibers during voluntary muscle contraction, rest, and Valsalva-type activities. The motor unit includes the anterior horn cell, its axon with axonal branches, the motor end plates, and the muscle fibers supplied. Information on the innervation and functional status of motor unit potentials is obtained. Results can be used to map normal muscle fibers. Several methods are available. Electrodes that are available for use are the surface anal plug, concentric needle electrodes, single-fiber electrodes, and monopolar wire electrodes. Injured or damaged muscle results in a lack of electrical activity or a polyphasic pattern. Incomplete damage may allow for reinnervation from adjacent undamaged nerves or regrowth of damaged axons. The result is that a greater number of muscle fibers are innervated by a single nerve, leading to an increase in the amplitude and a more prolonged motor unit action.
    • Abnormal findings after EMG evaluation are present in more than 90% of patients with fecal incontinence. In a study of 72 patients with fecal incontinence, Osterberg and colleagues found that fiber density observed with single-fiber electrodes correlated with clinical and manometric variables; PNTML did not.45
    • Although EMG is able to help quantitate denervation, findings do not alter clinical management. Similar to PNTML, Felt-Bersma et al suggest that EMG as a means to locate the sphincter defect has also lost its place in the preoperative assessment of anal sphincter defects.41 EMG studies can be uncomfortable, especially the single-fiber technique, and they may result in incomplete studies due to patient refusal to continue.
  • Defecography
    • Evacuation proctography (defecography) involves imaging the rectum with contrast material and observation of the process, rate, and completeness of rectal evacuation using fluoroscopic techniques. A variety of contrast materials have been used, including esophageal contrast barium and barium mixed with oatmeal or other viscous materials. Barium paste may also be inserted into the rectum. Images are obtained by lateral fluoroscopy and taken during attempted defecation. Defecography helps to assess qualitatively the function of the anorectum and the adequacy of rectal emptying; static images measure the length of the anal sphincter, the anorectal angle, and perineal descent. Diagnosis of rectoceles, enteroceles, and internal or occult rectal prolapse is possible. The true benefit in evaluation of patients with fecal incontinence is unclear, because most incontinent patients cannot tolerate the procedure.47

More on Fecal Incontinence

Overview: Fecal Incontinence
Workup: Fecal Incontinence
Treatment: Fecal Incontinence
Follow-up: Fecal Incontinence
Multimedia: Fecal Incontinence
References
[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

References

  1. [Guideline] Landefeld CS, Bowers BJ, Feld AD, Hartmann KE, Hoffman E, Ingber MJ. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: prevention of fecal and urinary incontinence in adults. Ann Intern Med. Mar 18 2008;148(6):449-58. [Medline].

  2. Nelson R, Norton N, Cautley E, Furner S. Community-based prevalence of anal incontinence. JAMA. Aug 16 1995;274(7):559-61. [Medline].

  3. Johanson JF, Lafferty J. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol. Jan 1996;91(1):33-6. [Medline].

  4. Nelson RL, Furner S. Jesudason V. Fecal Incontinence in Wisconsin nursing homes. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41:1226-1229.

  5. Guise JM, Morris C, Osterweil P, Li H, Rosenberg D, Greenlick M. Incidence of fecal incontinence after childbirth. Obstet Gynecol. Feb 2007;109(2 Pt 1):281-8. [Medline].

  6. Melville JL, Fan MY, Newton K, Fenner D. Fecal incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Dec 2005;193(6):2071-6. [Medline].

  7. Nygaard IE, Rao SS, Dawson JD. Anal incontinence after anal sphincter disruption: a 30-year retrospective cohort study. Obstet Gynecol. Jun 1997;89(6):896-901. [Medline].

  8. Mellgren A, Jensen LL, Zetterstrom JP, et al. Long-term cost of fecal incontinence secondary to obstetric injuries. Dis Colon Rectum. Jul 1999;42(7):857-65; discussion 865-7. [Medline].

  9. Sung VW, Rogers ML, Myers DL, Akbari HM, Clark MA. National trends and costs of surgical treatment for female fecal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Dec 2007;197(6):652.e1-5. [Medline].

  10. Abou-Zeid AA. Preliminary experience in management of fecal incontinence caused by internal anal sphincter injury. Dis Colon Rectum. Feb 2000;43(2):198-202; discussion 202-4. [Medline].

  11. Pretlove SJ, Thompson PJ, Toozs-Hobson PM, Radley S, Khan KS. Does the mode of delivery predispose women to anal incontinence in the first year postpartum? A comparative systematic review. BJOG. Mar 2008;115(4):421-34. [Medline].

  12. Zetterstrom J, Mellgren A, Jensen LL, et al. Effect of delivery on anal sphincter morphology and function. Dis Colon Rectum. Oct 1999;42(10):1253-60. [Medline].

  13. Abramowitz L, Sobhani I, Ganansia R, et al. Are sphincter defects the cause of anal incontinence after vaginal delivery? Results of a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum. May 2000;43(5):590-6; discussion 596-8. [Medline].

  14. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Bartram CI. Third degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: risk factors and outcome of primary repair. BMJ. Apr 2 1994;308(6933):887-91. [Medline].

  15. Tetzschner T, Sorensen M, Rasmussen OO, et al. Pudendal nerve damage increases the risk of fecal incontinence in women with anal sphincter rupture after childbirth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. Jul 1995;74(6):434-40. [Medline].

  16. Tetzschner T, Sorensen M, Lose G, Christiansen J. Anal and urinary incontinence in women with obstetric anal sphincter rupture. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. Oct 1996;103(10):1034-40. [Medline].

  17. Varma A, Gunn J, Lindow SW, Duthie GS. Do routinely measured delivery variables predict anal sphincter outcome?. Dis Colon Rectum. Oct 1999;42(10):1261-4. [Medline].

  18. Fynes M, Donnelly VS, O'Connell PR, O'Herlihy C. Cesarean delivery and anal sphincter injury. Obstet Gynecol. Oct 1998;92(4 Pt 1):496-500. [Medline].

  19. Gooneratne ML, Scott SM, Lunniss PJ. Unilateral pudendal neuropathy is common in patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Apr 2007;50(4):449-58. [Medline].

  20. Allen RE, Hosker GL, Smith AR, Warrell DW. Pelvic floor damage and childbirth: a neurophysiological study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. Sep 1990;97(9):770-9. [Medline].

  21. Ryhammer AM, Laurberg S, Hermann AP. Long-term effect of vaginal deliveries on anorectal function in normal perimenopausal women. Dis Colon Rectum. Aug 1996;39(8):852-9. [Medline].

  22. Guise JM, Boyles SH, Osterweil P, Li H, Eden KB, Mori M. Does cesarean protect against fecal incontinence in primiparous women?. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. Jan 2009;20(1):61-7. [Medline].

  23. Haadem K, Dahlstrom JA, Ling L. Anal sphincter competence in healthy women: clinical implications of age and other factors. Obstet Gynecol. Nov 1991;78(5 Pt 1):823-7. [Medline].

  24. Bannister JJ, Abouzekry L, Read NW. Effect of aging on anorectal function. Gut. Mar 1987;28(3):353-7. [Medline].

  25. Laurberg S, Swash M. Effects of aging on the anorectal sphincters and their innervation. Dis Colon Rectum. Sep 1989;32(9):737-42. [Medline].

  26. Jameson JS, Chia YW, Kamm MA, et al. Effect of age, sex and parity on anorectal function. Br J Surg. Nov 1994;81(11):1689-92. [Medline].

  27. Rao SS. Pathophysiology of adult fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology. Jan 2004;126(1 Suppl 1):S14-22. [Medline].

  28. Miller R, Bartolo DC, Cervero F, Mortensen NJ. Anorectal sampling: a comparison of normal and incontinent patients. Br J Surg. Jan 1988;75(1):44-7. [Medline].

  29. Cornes H, Bartolo DC, Stirrat GM. Changes in anal canal sensation after childbirth. Br J Surg. Jan 1991;78(1):74-7. [Medline].

  30. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Jan 2000;43(1):9-16; discussion 16-7. [Medline].

  31. Reilly WT, Talley NJ, Pemberton JH, Zinsmeister AR. Validation of a questionnaire to assess fecal incontinence and associated risk factors: Fecal Incontinence Questionnaire. Dis Colon Rectum. Feb 2000;43(2):146-53; discussion 153-4. [Medline].

  32. Toglia MR, DeLancey JO. Anal incontinence and the obstetrician-gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol. Oct 1994;84(4 Pt 2):731-40. [Medline].

  33. Law PJ, Bartram CI. Anal endosonography: technique and normal anatomy. Gastrointest Radiol. Fall 1989;14(4):349-53. [Medline].

  34. Law PJ, Kamm MA, Bartram CI. Anal endosonography in the investigation of faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. Mar 1991;78(3):312-4. [Medline].

  35. Bartram CI, Sultan AH. Anal endosonography in faecal incontinence. Gut. Jul 1995;37(1):4-6. [Medline].

  36. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Talbot IC, et al. Anal endosonography for identifying external sphincter defects confirmed histologically. Br J Surg. Mar 1994;81(3):463-5. [Medline].

  37. Burnett SJ, Spence-Jones C, Speakman CT, et al. Unsuspected sphincter damage following childbirth revealed by anal endosonography. Br J Radiol. Mar 1991;64(759):225-7. [Medline].

  38. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS, Cohen EK, Cohen Z. Anal wall thickness under normal and inflammatory conditions of the anorectum as determined by endoluminal ultrasonography. Am J Gastroenterol. Apr 1995;90(4):574-8. [Medline].

  39. Burnett SJ, Speakman CT, Kamm MA, Bartram CI. Confirmation of endosonographic detection of external anal sphincter defects by simultaneous electromyographic mapping. Br J Surg. Apr 1991;78(4):448-50. [Medline].

  40. Tjandra JJ, Milsom JW, Schroeder T, Fazio VW. Endoluminal ultrasound is preferable to electromyography in mapping anal sphincteric defects. Dis Colon Rectum. Jul 1993;36(7):689-92. [Medline].

  41. Felt-Bersma RJ, Cuesta MA, Koorevaar M. Anal sphincter repair improves anorectal function and endosonographic image. A prospective clinical study. Dis Colon Rectum. Aug 1996;39(8):878-85. [Medline].

  42. Gilliland R, Altomare DF, Moreira H Jr, et al. Pudendal neuropathy is predictive of failure following anterior overlapping sphincteroplasty. Dis Colon Rectum. Dec 1998;41(12):1516-22. [Medline].

  43. Sangwan YP, Coller JA, Barrett RC, et al. Unilateral pudendal neuropathy. Impact on outcome of anal sphincter repair. Dis Colon Rectum. Jun 1996;39(6):686-9. [Medline].

  44. Fynes M, Donnelly V, Behan M, et al. Effect of second vaginal delivery on anorectal physiology and faecal continence: a prospective study. Lancet. Sep 18 1999;354(9183):983-6. [Medline].

  45. Osterberg A, Graf W, Edebol Eeg-Olofsson K, et al. Results of neurophysiologic evaluation in fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Sep 2000;43(9):1256-61. [Medline].

  46. Chen AS, Luchtefeld MA, Senagore AJ, et al. Pudendal nerve latency. Does it predict outcome of anal sphincter repair?. Dis Colon Rectum. Aug 1998;41(8):1005-9. [Medline].

  47. Bellicini N, Molloy PJ, Caushaj P, Kozlowski P. Fecal incontinence: a review. Dig Dis Sci. Jan 2008;53(1):41-6. [Medline].

  48. Ryn AK, Morren GL, Hallbook O, Sjodahl R. Long-term results of electromyographic biofeedback training for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Sep 2000;43(9):1262-6. [Medline].

  49. Fynes MM, Marshall K, Cassidy M, et al. A prospective, randomized study comparing the effect of augmented biofeedback with sensory biofeedback alone on fecal incontinence after obstetric trauma. Dis Colon Rectum. Jun 1999;42(6):753-8; discussion 758-61. [Medline].

  50. Norton CC, Cody JD, Hosker G. Biofeedback and/or sphincter exercises for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2009;2:[Full Text].

  51. Tjandra JJ, Lim JF, Hiscock R, Rajendra P. Injectable silicone biomaterial for fecal incontinence caused by internal anal sphincter dysfunction is effective. Dis Colon Rectum. Dec 2004;47(12):2138-46. [Medline].

  52. Altomare DF, La Torre F, Rinaldi M, Binda GA, Pescatori M. Carbon-coated microbeads anal injection in outpatient treatment of minor fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Apr 2008;51(4):432-5. [Medline].

  53. Fang DT, Nivatvongs S, Vermeulen FD, et al. Overlapping sphincteroplasty for acquired anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Nov 1984;27(11):720-2. [Medline].

  54. Briel JW, de Boer LM, Hop WC, Schouten WR. Clinical outcome of anterior overlapping external anal sphincter repair with internal anal sphincter imbrication. Dis Colon Rectum. Feb 1998;41(2):209-14. [Medline].

  55. Weber AM, Walters MD, Ballard LA, et al. Posterior vaginal prolapse and bowel function. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Dec 1998;179(6 Pt 1):1446-9; discussion 1449-50. [Medline].

  56. Wexner SD, Oliveira L. Anal incontinence. In: Beck DE, Wexner SD, eds. Fundamentals of Anorectal Surgery. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1998:115-52.

  57. Setti Carraro P, Kamm MA, Nicholls RJ. Long-term results of postanal repair for neurogenic faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. Jan 1994;81(1):140-4. [Medline].

  58. Matsuoka H, Mavrantonis C, Wexner SD, et al. Postanal repair for fecal incontinence--is it worthwhile?. Dis Colon Rectum. Nov 2000;43(11):1561-7. [Medline].

  59. Laurberg S, Swash M, Henry MM. Effect of postanal repair on progress of neurogenic damage to the pelvic floor. Br J Surg. May 1990;77(5):519-22. [Medline].

  60. Jameson JS, Speakman CT, Darzi A, et al. Audit of postanal repair in the treatment of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Apr 1994;37(4):369-72. [Medline].

  61. Womack NR, Morrison JF, Williams NS. Prospective study of the effects of postanal repair in neurogenic faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. Jan 1988;75(1):48-52. [Medline].

  62. Orrom WJ, Miller R, Cornes H, et al. Comparison of anterior sphincteroplasty and postanal repair in the treatment of idiopathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Apr 1991;34(4):305-10. [Medline].

  63. Madoff RD, Rosen HR, Baeten CG, LaFontaine LJ, Cavina E, Devesa M. Safety and efficacy of dynamic muscle plasty for anal incontinence: lessons from a prospective, multicenter trial. Gastroenterology. Mar 1999;116(3):549-56. [Medline].

  64. Baeten CG, Bailey HR, Bakka A, Belliveau P, Berg E, Buie WD, et al. Safety and efficacy of dynamic graciloplasty for fecal incontinence: report of a prospective, multicenter trial. Dynamic Graciloplasty Therapy Study Group. Dis Colon Rectum. Jun 2000;43(6):743-51. [Medline].

  65. Corman ML. Gracilis muscle transposition for anal incontinence: late results. Br J Surg. Sep 1985;72 Suppl:S21-2. [Medline].

  66. Altomare DF, Binda GA, Dodi G, La Torre F, Romano G, Rinaldi M. Disappointing long-term results of the artificial anal sphincter for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. Oct 2004;91(10):1352-3. [Medline].

  67. Bratzler DW, Houck PM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. Apr 2005;189(4):395-404. [Medline].

  68. Oliveira L, Pfeifer J, Wexner SD. Physiological and clinical outcome of anterior sphincteroplasty. Br J Surg. Apr 1996;83(4):502-5. [Medline].

  69. Barisic GI, Krivokapic ZV, Markovic VA, Popovic MA. Outcome of overlapping anal sphincter repair after 3 months and after a mean of 80 months. Int J Colorectal Dis. Jan 2006;21(1):52-6. [Medline].

  70. Halverson AL, Hull TL. Long-term outcome of overlapping anal sphincter repair. Dis Colon Rectum. Mar 2002;45(3):345-8. [Medline].

  71. Tjandra JJ, Chan MK, Yeh CH, Murray-Green C. Sacral nerve stimulation is more effective than optimal medical therapy for severe fecal incontinence: a randomized, controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum. May 2008;51(5):494-502. [Medline].

  72. Altomare DF, Ratto C, Ganio E, Lolli P, Masin A, Villani RD. Long-term outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Jan 2009;52(1):11-7. [Medline].

  73. Boyle DJ, Knowles CH, Lunniss PJ, Scott SM, Williams NS, Gill KA. Efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence in patients with anal sphincter defects. Dis Colon Rectum. Jul 2009;52(7):1234-9. [Medline].

  74. Deen KI, Kumar D, Williams JG, et al. Anal sphincter defects. Correlation between endoanal ultrasound and surgery. Ann Surg. Aug 1993;218(2):201-5. [Medline].

  75. Ganio E, Masin A, Ratto C, Altomare DF, Ripetti V, Clerico G. Short-term sacral nerve stimulation for functional anorectal and urinary disturbances: results in 40 patients: evaluation of a new option for anorectal functional disorders. Dis Colon Rectum. Sep 2001;44(9):1261-7. [Medline].

  76. Kafka NJ, Coller JA, Barrett RC, et al. Pudendal neuropathy is the only parameter differentiating leakage from solid stool incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Oct 1997;40(10):1220-7. [Medline].

  77. Kaufman HS. Pathophysiology, Etiology, and Treatment of Fecal Incontinence. Postgraduate course on Colorectal Dysfunction presented at: American Urogynecologic Society 21st Annual Scientific Meeting. 2000.

  78. Matzel KE, Stadelmaier U, Hohenfellner M, Hohenberger W. Chronic sacral spinal nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: long-term results with foramen and cuff electrodes. Dis Colon Rectum. Jan 2001;44(1):59-66. [Medline].

  79. Nielsen MB, Hauge C, Rasmussen OO, et al. Anal endosonographic findings in the follow-up of primarily sutured sphincteric ruptures. Br J Surg. Feb 1992;79(2):104-6. [Medline].

  80. Scheuer M, Kuijpers HC, Jacobs PP. Postanal repair restores anatomy rather than function. Dis Colon Rectum. Nov 1989;32(11):960-3. [Medline].

  81. Scott AD, Henry MM, Phillips RK. Clinical assessment and anorectal manometry before postanal repair: failure to predict outcome. Br J Surg. Jun 1990;77(6):628-9. [Medline].

  82. Snooks SJ, Swash M, Henry M. Electrophysiologic and manometric assessment of failed postanal repair for anorectal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. Nov 1984;27(11):733-6. [Medline].

  83. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Bartram CI, Hudson CN. Anal sphincter trauma during instrumental delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. Dec 1993;43(3):263-70. [Medline].

  84. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, et al. Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med. Dec 23 1993;329(26):1905-11. [Medline].

  85. Varma MG, Brown JS, Creasman JM, Thom DH, Van Den Eeden SK, Beattie MS. Fecal incontinence in females older than aged 40 years: who is at risk?. Dis Colon Rectum. Jun 2006;49(6):841-51. [Medline].

  86. Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Salanga VD, et al. Neurophysiologic assessment of the anal sphincters. Dis Colon Rectum. Jul 1991;34(7):606-12. [Medline].

  87. Yilmaz E, Nas T, Korucuoglu U, Guler I. Manometric evaluation of anal sphincter function after vaginal and cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. Nov 2008;103(2):162-5. [Medline].

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Further Reading

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Keywords

fecal incontinence, anal incontinence, anal sphincter disruption, spina bifida, myelomeningocele, prolonged second stage of labor, forceps delivery, significant tears, episiotomy, pudendal nerve injury, birth trauma, anterior overlapping sphincteroplasty

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Sonia Ranganath, MD, Resident Physician, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts Medical Center
Sonia Ranganath, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, and Massachusetts Medical Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Tanaz R Ferzandi, MD, Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts University School of Medicine; Division Director, Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Tufts Medical Center
Tanaz R Ferzandi, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Urogynecologic Society, International Urogynaecology Association, and Massachusetts Medical Society
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Medical Editor

Jose A Perez Jr, MD, MSEd, MBA, Consulting Physician, Department of Internal Medicine, Residency Director, Vice Chair of Education Department of Medicine, The Methodist Hospital, Houston; Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College
Jose A Perez Jr, MD, MSEd, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Physician Executives, American College of Physicians, and Society of General Internal Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Editor

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine
Disclosure: eMedicine Salary Employment

Managing Editor

David Chelmow, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts University School of Medicine; Program Director, Tufts University Affiliated Hospitals Obstetrics/Gynecology Residency Program; Chair, Tufts University Health Sciences Campus Institutional Review Board; Vice Chair for Research and Education, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Tufts Medical Center
David Chelmow, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, Society for Gynecologic Investigation, and Society for Medical Decision Making
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

CME Editor

Frederick B Gaupp, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Family Practice, Hancock Medical Center
Frederick B Gaupp, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Family Physicians
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

David Chelmow, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts University School of Medicine; Program Director, Tufts University Affiliated Hospitals Obstetrics/Gynecology Residency Program; Chair, Tufts University Health Sciences Campus Institutional Review Board; Vice Chair for Research and Education, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Tufts Medical Center
David Chelmow, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, Society for Gynecologic Investigation, and Society for Medical Decision Making
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

 
 
HONcode

We subscribe to the
HONcode principles of the
Health On the Net Foundation

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright© 1994- by Medscape.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.