Clinical Assessment of the Incontinent Patient

  • Hector Ortiz
  • Mario De Miguel
  • Miguel A. Ciga


Besides physiologic investigations and radiology imaging, diagnosis of fecal incontinence requires accurate clinical assessment. By means of a structured scheme, clinical assessment aims to evaluate the whole picture: whether the patient is really incontinent, the etiology of the incontinence, and the nature and severity of the problem. Nevertheless, we must keep in mind that when treating an individual patient, these data may not be enough to define the pathophysiology of the symptom and, therefore, we need the investigations we mentioned initially.


Fecal Incontinence Anal Canal Sphincter Defect Digital Examination Incontinent Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Leigh RJ, Turnberg LA (1982) Faecal incontinence: the unvoiced symptom. Lancet 1(8285): 1349–1351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hill J, Corson RJ, Brandon H et al (1994) History and examination in the assessment of patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 37:473–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hardcastle JD, Porter NH (1969) Anal continence. In: Morson BC, ed. Diseases of the colon, rectum and anus. Appleton-Century-Crofts New York, p 251Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eckhardt VF, Kanzler G (1993) How reliable is digital examination for the evaluation of anal sphincter tone? Int J Colorectal Dis 8:95–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith RG, Lewis S (1990) The relationship between digital rectal examination and abdominal radiographs in elderly patients. Age Ageing 19:142–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norton NJ (2004) The perspective of the patient. Gastroenterology 126:S175–S179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao SSC (2004) Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. Practice guidelines. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1585–1604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Browning G, Parks A (1983) Postanal repair for neuropathic faecal incontinence: correlation of clinical results and anal canal pressures. Br J Surg 70:101–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW et al (1999) Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1525–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bravo A, Madoff RD, Lovry AC et al (2004) Long-term results of anterior sphincteroplasty. Dis Colon Rectum 47:727–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jorge JMN, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pescatori M, Anastasio G, Botíni C et al (1992) New grading system and scoring for anal incontinence. Evaluation of 335 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 35:482–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE et al (2002) Patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ 324:1193–1194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dobben AC, Terra MP, Deutekom M et al (2005) Diagnostic work-up for faecal incontinence in daily clinical practice in the Netherlands. Neth J Med 63:265–269PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hector Ortiz
  • Mario De Miguel
  • Miguel A. Ciga

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations