Comparison of Patient Impact and Clinical Characteristics Between Urgency and Passive Fecal Incontinence Phenotypes

急迫性大便失禁和被动性大便失禁表型的患者影响和临床特征比较

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if categorizing fecal incontinence (FI) as urgency or passive FI is clinically meaningful, we compared clinical severity, quality of life, physical examination findings, and functional and anatomic deficits between women with urgency and passive FI. METHODS: This study is a prospective cross-sectional study of women with at least monthly FI. All women completed the St Mark's Vaizey and the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaires and underwent anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasound. We compared women with urgency FI to women with passive FI. RESULTS: Forty-six women were enrolled, 21 (46%) with urgency FI and 25 (54%) with passive FI. Clinical severity by Vaizey score did not differ between groups (urgency 11.7 ± 1.6 vs passive 11.0 ± 1.0, P = 0.51). Women with urgency FI had worse median (range) lifestyle and coping scores than passive FI (Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life: lifestyle domain 2.5 [1, 4] vs 3.8 [1, 4], P = 0.04; coping domain 1.7 [1, 3] vs 2.4 [0.9, 4], P < 0.01). Women with urgency FI had higher anal resting and squeeze pressure than passive FI (60 ± 4 mm Hg vs 49 ± 3 mm Hg, P = 0.03; 78 [48, 150] mm Hg vs 60 [40, 103], P = 0.05). Internal anal sphincter defects were more common in women with passive FI (41.7% vs 30.0%, P = 0.53) and external anal sphincter defects more common in women with urgency FI (25% vs 16.7%, P = 0.71), but this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: We identified functional and anatomic differences between women with urgency FI and passive FI. Pheonotyping women with FI into these subtypes is clinically meaningful.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。