Although anismus has been considered to be the principal cause of anorectal outlet obstruction, it is doubtful whether contraction of the puborectalis muscle during straining is paradoxical. The present study was conducted to answer this question.During the first part of the study, we retrospectively reviewed 121 patients with constipation and/or obstructed defecation (male:female, 10/111; median age, 51 years). All of these patients underwent electromyography (EMG) of the pelvic floor and the balloon expulsion test (BET) in the left lateral position. Evacuation proctography was performed in all of these patients in the sitting position. Both the posterior anorectal angle and the central anorectal angle were measured. EMG and BET were also performed in ten controls (male:female, 4/6; median age, 47). In 147 patients with fecal incontinence (male:female, 24/123; median age, 58) only EMG activity was recorded. Criteria for anismus during straining were increase or insufficient (<20 percent) decrease of EMG activity, failure to expel an air-filled balloon on BET, and decrease or insufficient (<5 percent) increase of anorectal angle on evacuation proctography. Between June 1994 and March 1995, we conducted a second prospective study in a consecutive series of 49 patients with constipation and/or obstructed defecation and 28 patients with fecal incontinence. Both groups were compared with 19 control subjects. In this study, all three tests were performed. EMG and BET were performed both in the left lateral position and in the sitting position.The retrospective study was undertaken by comparing the constipated patients with the incontinent patients and the controls, and the anismus detected by EMG was found in, respectively, 60, 46, and 60 percent. Failure to expel the air-filled balloon was observed in 80 constipated patients (66 percent) and in 9 control subjects (90 percent). Based on posterior anorectal angle and central anorectal angle measurements, anismus was diagnosed in, respectively, 21 and 35 percent of constipated patients. In the prospective study, none of the tests showed significant differences regarding the prevalence of anismus between the two subgroups of patients and the control subjects. The prevalence of anismus only differed between constipated and incontinent patients when the diagnosis was based on BET in the sitting position (67 vs. 32 percent; P < 0.005). Our study shows that contraction of the puborectalis muscle during straining is not exclusively found in patients with constipation and/or obstructed defecation. The three tests most commonly used for the diagnosis of anismus showed an extremely poor agreement.Based on these findings, we doubt the clinical significance of anismus.
Continence disturbances, especially fecal soiling, are difficult to treat. Irrigation of the distal part of the large bowel might be considered as a nonsurgical alternative for patients with impaired continence.This study is aimed at evaluating the clinical value of colonic irrigation.Thirty-two patients (16 females; median age, 47 (range, 23-72) years) were offered colonic irrigation on an ambulatory basis. Sixteen patients suffered from fecal soiling (Group I), whereas the other 16 patients were treated for fecal incontinence (Group II). Patients were instructed by enterostomal therapists how to use a conventional colostomy irrigation set to obtain sufficient irrigation of the distal part of their large bowel. Patients with continence disturbances during the daytime were instructed to introduce 500 to 1,000 ml of warm (38 degrees C) water within 5 to 10 minutes after they passed their first stool. In addition, they were advised to wait until the urge to defecate was felt. Patients with soiling during overnight sleep were advised to irrigate during the evening. To determine clinical outcome, a detailed questionnaire was used.Median duration of follow-up was 18 months. Ten patients discontinued irrigation within the first month of treatment. Symptoms resolved completely in two patients. They believed that there was no need to continue treatment any longer. Irrigation had no effect in two patients. Despite the fact that symptoms resolved, six patients discontinued treatment because they experienced pain (n = 2) or they considered the irrigation to be too time-consuming (n = 4). Twenty-two patients are still performing irrigations. Most patients irrigated the colon in the morning after the first stool was passed. Time needed for washout varied between 10 and 90 minutes. Frequency of irrigations varied from two times per day to two times per week. In Group I, irrigation was found to be beneficial in 92 percent of patients, whereas 60 percent of patients in Group II considered the treatment as a major improvement to the quality of their lives. If patients who discontinued treatment because of washout-related problems are included in the assessment of final outcome, the success rate is 79 and 38 percent respectively.Patients with fecal soiling benefit more from colonic irrigation than patients with incontinence for liquid or solid stools. If creation of a stoma is considered, especially in patients with intractable and disabling soiling, it might be worthwhile to treat these patients first by colonic irrigation.
PURPOSE: This study was designed to compare two different types of anal retractors (Parks vs. Scott) with regard to their impact on fecal continence after fistula repair. METHODS: Between November 2000 and November 2001, 30 patients were randomized into two groups. In Group A (n = 15), a Parks retractor was used during fistula repair, whereas in Group B (n = 15), the repair was performed with a Scott retractor. Before and three months after surgery, maximum anal resting pressure and maximum anal squeeze pressure were recorded. In addition, continence status was evaluated using both the Rockwood Fecal Incontinence Severity Index and the scoring system according to Parks. RESULTS: In Group A, the median anal resting pressure dropped from 76 mmHg to 42 mmHg. In Group B, no significant difference was observed between the preoperative and postoperative anal resting pressure. The difference in the changes from baseline between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.035). No significant changes in anal squeeze pressure were observed. In Group A, the median Rockwood fecal incontinence score increased from 0 to 12. In Group B, the median Rockwood fecal incontinence score did not change after the operation. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a Parks retractor during perianal fistula repair has a deteriorating effect on fecal continence, probably because of damage to the internal anal sphincter. Because this side effect was not observed after the use of a Scott retractor, we advocate the use of this retractor during all fistula repairs.
Abstract Objective Irrigation of the distal part of the large bowel is a nonsurgical alternative for patients with defaecation disturbances. In our institution, all patients with defaecation disturbances, not responding to medical treatment and biofeedback therapy, were offered retrograde colonic irrigation (RCI). This study is aimed at evaluating the long‐term feasibility and outcome of RCI. Methods Between 1989 and 2001, a consecutive series of 267 patients was offered RCI. All patients received instructions about RCI by one of our enterostomal therapists. Twenty‐eight patients were lost to follow‐up. A detailed questionnaire was sent by mail to 239 patients. The total response rate was 79% (190 patients). Based on the returned questionnaires it became clear that 21 (11%) patients never started RCI. The long‐term feasibility and outcome of RCI was therefore assessed in the remaining group of 169 patients. Thirty‐two patients were admitted with soiling, 71 patients with faecal incontinence, 37 patients with obstructed defaecation and 29 had defaecation disturbances after low anterior resection or pouch surgery. Results According to the returned questionnaires, RCI was considered effective by 91 (54%) patients. Among patients with soling and faecal incontinence, RCI was found to be effective in, respectively, 47 and 41% of the subjects. Despite of the reported effectiveness, 10 (67%) patients with soiling and 5 (17%) patients with faecal incontinence decided to stop. Among patients with obstructed defaecation and those with defaecation disturbances after low anterior resection or pouch surgery the effectiveness of RCI was found to be 65 and 79%, respectively. None of these patients ceased their therapy. The overall success‐rate of long‐term RCI was therefore 45%. Conclusions Long‐term RCI is beneficial for 45% of patients with defaecation disturbances. In the group of patients who considered RCI effective and beneficial, discontinuation of therapy was only observed among those with soiling and faecal incontinence.
We report a case of spinal epidural abscess presenting as abdominal pain. An 7-year-old boy presented with abdominal pain. He was operated on under suspicion of appendicitis. During operation, no abnormalities were found. Postoperatively, the abdominal pain did not subside. Subsequently, the boy developed neurological abnormalities. MRI showed a spinal epidural abscess. A laminectomy was performed and the boy was treated with antibiotics; he recovered well. This case showed that it is important to consider a spinal epidural abscess as a cause of abdominal pain with fever in children.
