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

Aaron J. Dawes, Juan O. Mariscal, Peter J. White, Emily F. Midura, Anne E. Sirany, Ann C. Lowry, Christine C. Jensen, Amy J. Thorsen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)831-839
Number of pages9
JournalDiseases of the colon and rectum
Volume66
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • Clinical outcomes
  • Fecal incontinence
  • Internal rectal prolapse
  • Quality of life
  • Rectoanal intussusception
  • Sacral nerve stimulation

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Video-Audio Media
  • Journal Article

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Does Rectoanal Intussusception Limit Improvements in Clinical Outcome and Quality of Life After Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this