This report defines criteria and reviews the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of the following common anorectal disorders: fecal incontinence (FI), functional anorectal pain, and functional defecation disorders. FI is defined as the recurrent uncontrolled passage of fecal material for at least 3 months. The clinical features of FI are useful for guiding diagnostic testing and therapy. Anorectal manometry and imaging are useful for evaluating anal and pelvic floor structure and function. Education, antidiarrheals, and biofeedback therapy are the mainstay of management; surgery may be useful in refractory cases. Functional anorectal pain syndromes are defined by clinical features and categorized into 3 subtypes. In proctalgia fugax, the pain is typically fleeting and lasts for seconds to minutes. In levator ani syndrome and unspecified anorectal pain, the pain lasts more than 30 minutes, but in levator ani syndrome there is puborectalis tenderness. Functional defecation disorders are defined by ≥2 symptoms of chronic constipation or irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, and with ≥2 features of impaired evacuation, that is, abnormal evacuation pattern on manometry, abnormal balloon expulsion test, or impaired rectal evacuation by imaging. It includes 2 subtypes: dyssynergic defecation and inadequate defecatory propulsion. Pelvic floor biofeedback therapy is effective for treating levator ani syndrome and defecatory disorders.

BackgroundThis manuscript summarizes consensus reached by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) for the performance, terminology used, and interpretation of anorectal function testing including anorectal manometry (focused on high‐resolution manometry), the rectal sensory test, and the balloon expulsion test. Based on these measurements, a classification system for disorders of anorectal function is proposed.MethodsTwenty‐nine working group members (clinicians/academics in the field of gastroenterology, coloproctology, and gastrointestinal physiology) were invited to six face‐to‐face and three remote meetings to derive consensus between 2014 and 2018.Key recommendationsThe IAPWG protocol for the performance of anorectal function testing recommends a standardized sequence of maneuvers to test rectoanal reflexes, anal tone and contractility, rectoanal coordination, and rectal sensation. Major findings not seen in healthy controls defined by the classification are as follows: rectoanal areflexia, anal hypotension and hypocontractility, rectal hyposensitivity, and hypersensitivity. Minor and inconclusive findings that can be present in health and require additional information prior to diagnosis include anal hypertension and dyssynergia.Conclusions and InferencesThis framework introduces the IAPWG protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function based on objective physiological measurement. The use of a common language to describe results of diagnostic tests, standard operating procedures, and a consensus classification system is designed to bring much‐needed standardization to these techniques.

Background: The incidence of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (ACD) is increasing in the Western world. To improve the quality of patient care, a guideline for diagnosis and treatment of diverticulitis is needed. Methods: A multidisciplinary working group, representing experts of relevant specialties, was involved in the guideline development. A systematic literature search was conducted to collect scientific evidence on epidemiology, classification, diagnostics and treatment of diverticulitis. Literature was assessed using the classification system according to an evidence-based guideline development method, and levels of evidence of the conclusions were assigned to each topic. Final recommendations were given, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusions and other relevant considerations such as patient preferences, costs and availability of facilities. Results: The natural history of diverticulitis is usually mild and treatment is mostly conservative. Although younger patients have a higher risk of recurrent disease, a higher risk of complications compared to older patients was not found. In general, the clinical diagnosis of ACD is not accurate enough and therefore imaging is indicated. The triad of pain in the lower left abdomen on physical examination, the absence of vomiting and a C-reactive protein >50 mg/l has a high predictive value to diagnose ACD. If this triad is present and there are no signs of complicated disease, patients may be withheld from further imaging. If imaging is indicated, conditional computed tomography, only after a negative or inconclusive ultrasound, gives the best results. There is no indication for routine endoscopic examination after an episode of diverticulitis. There is no evidence for the routine administration of antibiotics in patients with clinically mild uncomplicated diverticulitis. Treatment of pericolic or pelvic abscesses can initially be treated with antibiotic therapy or combined with percutaneous drainage. If this treatment fails, surgical drainage is required. Patients with a perforated ACD resulting in peritonitis should undergo an emergency operation. There is an ongoing debate about the optimal surgical strategy. Conclusion: Scientific evidence is scarce for some aspects of ACD treatment (e.g. natural history of ACD, ACD in special patient groups, prevention of ACD, treatment of uncomplicated ACD and medical treatment of recurrent ACD), leading to treatment being guided by the surgeon's personal preference. Other aspects of the management of patients with ACD have been more thoroughly researched (e.g. imaging techniques, treatment of complicated ACD and elective surgery of ACD). This guideline of the diagnostics and treatment of ACD can be used as a reference for clinicians who treat patients with ACD.

Objective To determine risk factors for third degree obstetric perineal tears and to give recommendations for prevention.Design Retrospective case-control study.Setting A teaching hospital in The Netherlands.Participants and methods One hundred and twenty cases of vaginal delivery complicated by third degree perineal tear and 702 uncomplicated vaginal deliveries were compared, with respect to possible risk factors.Results In a multivariate model high birthweight, forceps delivery, induced labour, epidural anaesthesia and parity were risk factors for anal sphincter tear. In addition, mediolateral episiotomy was associated with fewer sphincter injuries. Separate analysis of nulli-and multiparous women demonstrated that high birthweight and epidural anaesthesia (increased risk) and mediolateral episiotomy (decreased risk) were factors associated with anal sphincter tear only in nulliparous women.Conclusions We found several risk factors for anal sphincter tear. Nulliparous women are at higher risk than multiparous women. Mediolateral episiotomy may be sphincter-saving especially in nulliparous women and therefore prevent them from chronic faecal incontinence.

Anal incontinence prevails in 40 per cent of women 5 years after primary repair of a third-degree perineal rupture. The presence of a combined sphincter defect or subsequent vaginal delivery increase the risk of anal incontinence.