Advertisement

Does flatus incontinence matter?

  • Laura CattaniEmail author
  • Moshe Gillor
  • Hans Peter Dietz
Original Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

This study aimed to determine whether incontinence to flatus is associated with women’s bother in a symptomatic population and with sonographically diagnosed external anal sphincter (EAS) trauma.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of women attending a tertiary urogynecological unit between May 2013 and November 2015. Baseline evaluation included a standardized interview with St. Mark’s Incontinence Score (SMIS) and visual analog scale (VAS) assessment for bother, as well as a physical examination and translabial pelvic floor ultrasound. At least one volume obtained covered the entire length of the EAS. These volumes were analyzed with the reviewer blinded to all clinical data.

Results

During the inclusion period, 1104 patients visited the unit. Fifty-three patients were excluded from the study for missing data, leaving 1051 for final analysis. Mean age was 57 years (56–58) and mean body mass index (BMI) 29.1 kg/m2 (28.8–29.6). The prevalence of any anal incontinence (AI) and flatus incontinence were 16.4% (172/1051) and 13.9% (146/1051), respectively. In the group of patients with AI, mean SMIS was 11.8 (11.0–12.6), and mean VAS for AI bother was 5.4 (5.0–5.9). Significant EAS trauma was detected in 9.8% (103/1051) of patients and was associated with flatus incontinence (p = 0.002). Including a flatus incontinence question in the SMIS questionnaire improved the prediction of patient bother from AI (R2 87.8% versus R2 86.3%, p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Flatus incontinence is associated with ultrasound findings of EAS trauma and with higher patient bother from AI.

Keywords

Bother Exoanal ultrasound Flatus incontinence Obstetric anal sphincter trauma St. Mark’s incontinence score Visual analogue scale 

Notes

Financial disclaimers

LC stay at the University of Sydney was partly supported by the Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen (travel grant K200218 N). HPD has received unrestricted educational grants from GE Medical in the past.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Sultan A, Monga A, Lee J, Emmanuel A, Norton C, Santoro G, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female anorectal dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(1):10–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steinberg AC, Collins SA, O'Sullivan DM. The impact of flatal incontinence on quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(5):539.e1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boreham M, Richter H, Kenton KS, Nager CW, Gregory W, Aronson MP, et al. Anal incontinence in women presenting for gynecologic care: prevalence, risk factors, and impact upon quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1637–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guzman Rojas RA, Salvesen KA, Volloyhaug I. Anal sphincter defects and faecal incontinence 15-24 years after first delivery: a cross-sectional study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(5):677–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen T, Milsom I. Faecal incontinence 20 years after one birth: a comparison between vaginal delivery and caesarean section. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(10):1411–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johannessen H, Mørkved S, Stordahl A, Sandvik L, Wibe A. Anal incontinence and quality of life in late pregnancy: a cross-sectional study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(8):978–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumar R. Anal incontinence and quality of life following obstetric anal sphincter injury. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(3):591–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palm A, Israelsson L, Bolin M, Danielsson I. Symptoms after obstetric sphincter injuries have little effect on quality of life. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(1):109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maeda JY, Parés AD, Norton AC, Vaizey AC, Kamm AM. Does the St. Markʼs incontinence score reflect Patientsʼ perceptions? A review of 390 patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(4):436–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roos A-M, Sultan A, Thakar R. St. Mark’s incontinence score for assessment of anal incontinence following obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(4):407–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paka C, Atan IK, Dietz HP. The bother of anal incontinence and St. Mark's incontinence score. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20(2):123–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thakar R, Sultan AH. Anal endosonography and its role in assessing the incontinent patient. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;18(1):157–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guzmán Rojas RA, Shek KL, Langer SM, Dietz HP. Prevalence of anal sphincter injury in primiparous women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(4):461–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guzmán Rojas RA, Kamisan Atan I, Shek KL, Dietz HP. Anal sphincter trauma and anal incontinence in urogynecological patients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46(3):363–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jordan PA, Naidu M, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Effect of subsequent vaginal delivery on bowel symptoms and anorectal function in women who sustained a previous obstetric anal sphincter injury. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(11):1579–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewicky-Gaupp C, Brincat C, Yusuf A, et al. Fecal incontinence in older women: are levator ani defects a factor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:491.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chantarasorn V, Shek KL, Dietz HP. Sonographic detection of puborectalis muscle avulsion is not associated with anal incontinence. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51(2):130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Persu C, Chapple CR, Cauni V, Gutue S, Geavlete P. Pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q) - a new era in pelvic prolapse staging. J Med Life. 2011;4(1):75–81.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dietz HP. Exoanal imaging of the anal sphincters. J Ultrasound Med. 2018;37(1):263–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roos AM, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Outcome of primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS): does the grade of tear matter? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(3):368–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dietz H, Bernardo M, Kirby A, Shek K. Minimal criteria for the diagnosis of avulsion of the puborectalis muscle by tomographic ultrasound. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(6):699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dietz HP, Shek C, De Leon J, Steensma AB. Ballooning of the levator hiatus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):676–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slieker-ten Hove M, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJ, Steegers-Theunissen RPM, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. Prevalence of double incontinence, risk and influence on quality of life in a general female population. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(4):545–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ng SC, Chen YC, Lin LY, Chen GD. Anorectal dysfunction in women with urinary incontinence or lower urinary tract symptoms. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2002;77(2):139–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rømmen K, Schei B, Rydning A, Sultan AH, Mørkved S. Prevalence of anal incontinence among Norwegian women: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e001257.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001257.

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney Medical School NepeanNepean HospitalPenrithAustralia
  2. 2.Department of GynaecologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Kaplan Medical Centre (Affiliated to the Hebrew University and Hadassah School of Medicine)RehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations