Does Rectoanal Intussusception Limit Improvements in Clinical Outcome and Quality of Life After Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence?

BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation is a treatment option for severe, medically refractory fecal incontinence, although its use in patients with anatomic abnormalities remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether patients with rectoanal intussusception achieve similar benefits from device implantation to patients without rectoanal intussusception. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. Demographics and clinical data were collected for each patient, including preoperative pelvic floor testing. Defecographies were reanalyzed in a blinded manner. Preoperative rectoanal intussusception was determined on the basis of the Oxford system (grade III–IV vs not; grade V excluded). SETTINGS: Academic-affiliated pelvic health center. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence between July 2011 and July 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Fecal Incontinence Severity Indices, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Indices at 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine patients underwent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence during the study period. The average age was 60.3 years and 91% were female. Forty-six patients (27.2%) had concomitant rectoanal intussusception (38 patients [22.5%] grade III and 8 patients [4.7%] grade IV). Before surgery, patients reported an average of 10.8 accidents per week and a Wexner score of 15.7, with no difference between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception (p = 0.22 and 0.95). At 1 year after surgery, the average Wexner score was 9.5. There was no difference in postoperative Wexner scores (10.4 vs 9.2, p = 0.23) or improvement over time between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception (–6.7 vs –5.7, p = 0.40). Similarly, there was no difference in quality of life or frequency of incontinence to liquid or solid stool. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution, moderate sample size, incomplete survey response. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant rectoanal intussusception does not appear to affect clinical outcomes or quality of life after sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Appropriate patients with fecal incontinence and rectoanal intussusception can be considered for sacral nerve stimulation placement. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192. ¿LA INTUSUSCEPCIÓN RECTOANAL LIMITA LAS MEJORAS EN EL RESULTADO CLÍNICO Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DESPUÉS DE LA NEUROESTIMULACION SACRA PARA LA INCONTINENCIA FECAL? ANTECEDENTES: La neuroestimulación sacra es una opción de tratamiento para la incontinencia fecal grave refractaria al tratamiento médico, aunque su uso en pacientes con anomalías anatómicas sigue siendo controvertido. OBJETIVO: Determinar si los pacientes con intususcepción rectoanal logran beneficios similares de la implantación del dispositivo a los pacientes sin intususcepción rectoanal. DISEÑO: Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente. Se recopilaron datos demográficos y clínicos de cada paciente, incluidas las pruebas preoperatorias del piso pélvico. Las defecografías se volvieron a analizar de forma ciega. La intususcepción rectoanal preoperatoria se determinó según el sistema de Oxford (grado III-IV vs. no; grado V excluido). ESCENARIO: Centro académico de salud pélvica. PACIENTES: Todos los pacientes sometidos a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal entre julio de 2011 y julio de 2019. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Índices de gravedad de la incontinencia fecal, Índices de calidad de vida de la incontinencia fecal al año. RESULTADOS: 169 pacientes se sometieron a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal durante el período de estudio. La edad promedio fue de 60.3 años y el 91% eran mujeres. Cuarenta y seis pacientes (27.2%) tenían intususcepción rectoanal concomitante (38 [22.5%] grado III y 8 [4.7%] grado IV). Antes de la cirugía, los pacientes informaron un promedio de 10.8 accidentes por semana y una puntuación de Wexner de 15.7 sin diferencia entre pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (p = 0.22 y 0.95). Un año después de la cirugía, la puntuación promedio de Wexner fue de 9.5. No hubo diferencia en las puntuaciones de Wexner posoperatorias (10.4 frente a 9.2, p = 0.23) o mejoría con el tiempo entre los pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (-6.7 frente a -5.7, p = 0.40). De manera similar, no hubo diferencia en la calidad de vida o la frecuencia de incontinencia de heces líquidas o sólidas. LIMITACIONES: Institución única, tamaño de muestra moderado, respuesta de encuesta incompleta. CONCLUSIÓN: La intususcepción rectoanal concomitante no parece afectar los resultados clínicos o la calidad de vida después de la neuroestimulación sacra para la incontinencia fecal. Los pacientes apropiados con incontinencia fecal e intususcepción rectoanal pueden ser considerados para la neuroestimulación sacra. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192 (Traducción—Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco)

[1]  K. Staller,et al.  A Quality-of-Life Comparison of Two Fecal Incontinence Phenotypes: Isolated Fecal Incontinence Versus Concurrent Fecal Incontinence With Constipation , 2019, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[2]  S. Brown,et al.  Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults , 2018, Techniques in Coloproctology.

[3]  L. Stassen,et al.  Fecal incontinence treated by sacral neuromodulation: Long‐term follow‐up of 325 patients , 2017, Surgery.

[4]  K. Matzel,et al.  Sacral neuromodulation for persistent faecal incontinence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for high‐grade internal rectal prolapse , 2016, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[5]  A. Kaiser,et al.  The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence. , 2015, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[6]  Craig H. Olson Diagnostic Testing for Fecal Incontinence , 2014, Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.

[7]  P. Dinning,et al.  A systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation mechanisms in the treatment of fecal incontinence and constipation , 2014, Neurogastroenterology and motility : the official journal of the European Gastrointestinal Motility Society.

[8]  S. Laurberg,et al.  Outcome of Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence at 5 Years , 2014, Annals of surgery.

[9]  J. Tuynman,et al.  Laparoscopic Ventral Rectopexy for Fecal Incontinence Associated with High-Grade Internal Rectal Prolapse , 2013, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[10]  K. Matzel,et al.  Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of neuromodulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence , 2013, The British journal of surgery.

[11]  L. Cancian,et al.  Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence Related to External Sphincter Atrophy , 2012, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[12]  C. Harmston,et al.  The relationship between internal rectal prolapse and internal anal sphincter function , 2011, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[13]  I. Lindsey,et al.  Pelvic Floor Disorders for the Colorectal Surgeon , 2010 .

[14]  S. Wexner,et al.  Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence: Results of a 120-Patient Prospective Multicenter Study , 2010, Annals of surgery.

[15]  G. Duthie,et al.  Sacral Nerve Neuromodulation Is Effective Treatment for Fecal Incontinence in the Presence of a Sphincter Defect, Pudendal Neuropathy, or Previous Sphincter Repair , 2010, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[16]  J. Tjandra,et al.  Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence: External Anal Sphincter Defect vs. Intact Anal Sphincter , 2008, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[17]  J. Tjandra,et al.  Sacral Nerve Stimulation is more Effective than Optimal Medical Therapy for Severe Fecal Incontinence: A Randomized, Controlled Study , 2008, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[18]  R. Farouk,et al.  Sacral Nerve Stimulation Can Be Successful in Patients With Ultrasound Evidence of External Anal Sphincter Disruption , 2005, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[19]  J. Fleshman,et al.  Fecal incontinence quality of life scale , 2000, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[20]  James W. Fleshman,et al.  Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence , 1999, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[21]  E. Soffer,et al.  Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adults , 1999, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[22]  K. Matzel,et al.  Electrical stimulation of sacral spinal nerves for treatment of faecal incontinence , 1995, The Lancet.

[23]  J. Williams,et al.  Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: Development, validation and application of a new instrument , 1995, The British journal of surgery.

[24]  R. Hompes,et al.  Sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence: is the outcome compromised in patients with high-grade internal rectal prolapse? , 2014, International Journal of Colorectal Disease.

[25]  S. Wexner,et al.  Etiology and management of fecal incontinence , 1993, Diseases of the colon and rectum.