Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 305–310 | Cite as

Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency testing does not provide useful information in guiding therapy for fecal incontinence

  • Julia T. Saraidaridis
  • George Molina
  • Lieba R. Savit
  • Holly Milch
  • Tiffany Mei
  • Samantha Chin
  • James Kuo
  • Liliana Bordeianou
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) testing is a standard recommendation for the evaluation of fecal incontinence. Its role in guiding therapy for fecal incontinence has been previously questioned. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between PNTML testing and anorectal dysfunction.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively from patients who presented to a pelvic floor disorder center from 2007 to 2015. The relationship between PNTML (normal versus delayed) and anorectal manometry, fecal incontinence severity, and fecal incontinence-related quality of life scores was assessed using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.

Results

Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent PNTML testing, and 91.1% were female (N = 245) (median age 62.2 years). Normal PNTML was seen in 234 (87.0%) patients. Among 268 patients who underwent anorectal manometry, delayed PNTML was only significantly associated with median maximum anal squeeze pressure (P = 0.04). Delayed PNTML was not associated with a decrease in median fecal incontinence severity or fecal incontinence-related quality of life scores (N = 99).

Conclusions

PNTML was only associated with median maximum anal squeeze pressure, and it was not associated with patient-reported severity of symptoms of fecal incontinence, changes in quality of life attributable to fecal incontinence, median mean resting anal pressure, or median maximum resting anal pressure. PNTML testing may not be relevant to current therapeutic algorithms for fecal incontinence and its routine use should be questioned.

Keywords

Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency Anorectal dysfunction 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the Partners Healthcare Institutional Review Board.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, Wexner SD, Bliss D, Lowry AC (1999) Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index. Dis Colon Rectum 42(12):1525–1532.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236199 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG, Wexner SD, Bliss D, Lowry AC (2000) Fecal incontinence quality of life scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43(1):9–16; discussion 16-7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237236 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parks AG, Swash M, Urich H (1977) Sphincter denervation in anorectal incontinence and rectal prolapse. Gut 18(8):656–665.  https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.18.8.656 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kiff ES, Swash M (1984) Slowed conduction in the pudendal nerves in idiopathic (neurogenic) faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 71(8):614–616.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800710817 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheong DM, Vaccaro CA, Salanga VD, Wexner SD, Phillips RC, Hanson MR, Waxner SD (1995) Electrodiagnostic evaluation of fecal incontinence. Muscle Nerve 18(6):612–619.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.880180608 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vernava AM 3rd, Longo WE, Daniel GL (1993) Pudendal neuropathy and the importance of EMG evaluation of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36(1):23–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050297 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hawkins AT, Olariu AG, Savitt LR, Gingipally S, Wakamatsu MM, Pulliam S, Weinstein MM, Bordeianou L (2016) Impact of rising grades of internal rectal intussusception on fecal continence and symptoms of constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 59(1):54–61.  https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000510 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rogers J, Henry MM, Misiewicz JJ (1988) Disposable pudendal nerve stimulator: evaluation of the standard instrument and new device. Gut 29(8):1131–1133.  https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.29.8.1131 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lowry AC et al Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer: report of the tripartite consensus conference on definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer, Washington, D.C., May 1, 1999. Dis Colon Rectum, 2001 44(7): p. 915–9Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rieger NA, Sarre RG, Saccone GTP, Schloithe AC, Wattchow DA (1997) Correlation of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency with the results of anal manometry. Int J Color Dis 12(5):303–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003840050111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suilleabhain CB et al (2001) The relationship of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency to squeeze pressure in patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 44(5):666–671.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02234563 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ricciardi R, Mellgren AF, Madoff RD, Baxter NN, Karulf RE, Parker SC (2006) The utility of pudendal nerve terminal motor latencies in idiopathic incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 49(6):852–857.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-006-0529-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loganathan A, Schloithe AC, Hakendorf P, Liyanage CM, Costa M, Wattchow D (2013) Prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency is associated with decreased resting and squeeze pressures in the intact anal sphincter. Color Dis 15(11):1410–1415.  https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Felt-Bersma RJ, Cuesta MA, Koorevaar M (1996) Anal sphincter repair improves anorectal function and endosonographic image. A prospective clinical study. Dis Colon Rectum 39(8):878–885.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02053986 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Engel AF, Kamm MA, Sultan AH, Bartram CI, Nicholls RJ (1994) Anterior anal sphincter repair in patients with obstetric trauma. Br J Surg 81(8):1231–1234.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800810853 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laurberg S, Swash M, Henry MM (1988) Delayed external sphincter repair for obstetric tear. Br J Surg 75(8):786–788.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800750821
  18. 18.
    Londono-Schimmer EE, Garcia-Duperly R, Nicholls RJ, Ritchie JK, Hawley PR, Thomson JPS (1994) Overlapping anal sphincter repair for faecal incontinence due to sphincter trauma: five year follow-up functional results. Int J Color Dis 9(2):110–113.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00699424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilliland R, Altomare DF, Moreira H Jr, Oliveira L, Gilliland JE, Wexner SD (1998) Pudendal neuropathy is predictive of failure following anterior overlapping sphincteroplasty. Dis Colon Rectum 41(12):1516–1522.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237299 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Birnbaum EH, Stamm L, Rafferty JF, Fry RD, Kodner IJ, Fleshman JW (1996) Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency influences surgical outcome in treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 39(11):1215–1221.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02055111 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fu CW, Stevenson AR (2017) Risk factors for recurrence after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 60(2):178–186.  https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000710 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Petrolino M, Ripetti V, Masin A, Ratto C, Trerotoli P, Monitillo V, Lobascio P, de Fazio M, Guglielmi A, Memeo V (2004) Reliability of electrophysiologic anal tests in predicting the outcome of sacral nerve modulation for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 47(6):853–857.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-004-0524-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carrington EV, Evers J, Grossi U, Dinning PG, Scott SM, O’Connell PR, Jones JFX, Knowles CH (2014) A systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation mechanisms in the treatment of fecal incontinence and constipation. Neurogastroenterol Motil 26(9):1222–1237.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.12388 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee JT, Madoff RD, Rockwood TH (2015) Quality-of-life measures in fecal incontinence: is validation valid? Dis Colon Rectum 58(3):352–357.  https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000290 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia T. Saraidaridis
    • 1
    • 2
  • George Molina
    • 2
    • 3
  • Lieba R. Savit
    • 2
    • 3
  • Holly Milch
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tiffany Mei
    • 2
    • 4
  • Samantha Chin
    • 2
    • 4
  • James Kuo
    • 2
    • 4
  • Liliana Bordeianou
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Colon and Rectal SurgeryLahey ClinicBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Colorectal Surgery Program and the Center for Pelvic Floor DisordersMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Brandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations