Study design: Review article. Objectives: To provide a consensus expert review of the treatment modality for transanal irrigation (TAI). Methods: A consensus group of specialists from a range of nations and disciplines who have experience in prescribing and monitoring patients using TAI worked together assimilating both the emerging literature and rapidly accruing clinical expertise. Consensus was reached by a round table discussion process, with individual members leading the article write-up in the sections where they had particular expertise. Results: Detailed trouble-shooting tips and an algorithm of care to assist professionals with patient selection, management and follow-up was developed. Conclusion: This expert review provides a practical adjunct to training for the emerging therapeutic area of TAI. Careful patient selection, directly supervised training and sustained follow-up are key to optimise outcomes with the technique. Adopting a tailored, stepped approach to care is important in the heterogeneous patient groups to whom TAI may be applied. Sponsorship: The review was financially supported by Coloplast A/S.

Enema-induced perforation is a rare complication to transanal irrigation with Peristeen Anal Irrigation, which increases the benefit risk ratio in support of the further use of transanal irrigation. Increased risk is present during treatment initiation and in patients with prior pelvic organ surgery. Careful patient selection, patient evaluation and proper training of patients are critical to safe practice of this technique.

Study design Prospective observational study. Objectives A tool to help decision-making tool for Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction (NBD) in individuals with SCI is needed. We present a project to create and validate a new tool, the Monitoring Efficacy of NBD Treatment On Response (MENTOR), and to determine its level of concordance with decisions made by experienced clinicians in the field. Setting UK, Denmark, USA, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany. Methods The first phase was creation of the tool through a modified Delphi process. The second phase was the validation, wherein individuals with spinal cord injury with NBD were asked to complete the MENTOR tool immediately prior to clinic consultation. From the responses to the questionnaire of the tool, each participant was allocated into one of three categories reflecting the possible therapeutic recommendations ("recommend change", "further discussion" and "monitoring"). An expert clinician then assessed the participant, blinded to MENTOR results, and made an independent treatment decision. Results A total of 248 MENTOR forms were completed. Strong agreement was found when the MENTOR tool recommended monitoring (92%) or treatment change (83%); the lowest concordance when the decision was for the "further discussion" option (59%). Patient acceptability was reported by 97% of individuals. Conclusions MENTOR is an easy to use tool to monitor the treatment of NBD and determinate progression through the clinical pathway. This validation study shows good correspondence between expert clinician opinion and MENTOR result. The tool has potential to be used in other patient groups, following further studies.

No abstract

No abstract