The Colorectal Development Unit: impact on functional outcome for the electrically stimulated gracilis neoanal sphincter

Saunders, J. R.; Darakhshan, Amir; Eccersley, A. J. P.; Lee, J. E.; Allison, Marion; Lunniss, Peter J.; Williams, Norman S.

doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2005.00914.x

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A multidisciplinary management resulted in reduced rates of post-treatment complications and in higher rates of functional outcomes compared to the pre-colorectal unit management. 380 However, the team consisted only of a surgeon, gastroenterologist, psychologist and a specialised nurse; some specialists who have a fundamental role in the management of patients with FI were not consulted. Currently, several tools have been developed to assess FI but there is no solid evidence on FI evaluation in the field of IBD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some hospitals, colorectal units have been developed in order to manage complex FI cases. A retrospective study by Saunders et al 380 analysed the impact of the colorectal unit on the rate of adverse events and functional outcomes. A multidisciplinary management resulted in reduced rates of post‐treatment complications and in higher rates of functional outcomes compared to the pre‐colorectal unit management 380 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A retrospective study by Saunders et al 380 analysed the impact of the colorectal unit on the rate of adverse events and functional outcomes. A multidisciplinary management resulted in reduced rates of post‐treatment complications and in higher rates of functional outcomes compared to the pre‐colorectal unit management 380 . However, the team consisted only of a surgeon, gastroenterologist, psychologist and a specialised nurse; some specialists who have a fundamental role in the management of patients with FI were not consulted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Fecal incontinence is a disabling condition affecting up to 20% of women. Objective We investigated fecal incontinence assessment in both inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients to propose a diagnostic approach for inflammatory bowel disease trials. Methods We searched on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library for all studies on adult inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients reporting data on fecal incontinence assessment from January 2009 to December 2019. Results In total, 328 studies were included; 306 studies enrolled non-inflammatory bowel disease patients and 22 studies enrolled inflammatory bowel disease patients. In non-inflammatory bowel disease trials the most used tools were the Wexner score, fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire, Vaizey score and fecal incontinence severity index (in 187, 91, 62 and 33 studies). Anal manometry was adopted in 41.2% and endoanal ultrasonography in 34.0% of the studies. In 142 studies (46.4%) fecal incontinence evaluation was performed with a single instrument, while in 64 (20.9%) and 100 (32.7%) studies two or more instruments were used. In inflammatory bowel disease studies the Wexner score, Vaizey score and inflammatory bowel disease quality of life questionnaire were the most commonly adopted tools (in five (22.7%), five (22.7%) and four (18.2%) studies). Anal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography were performed in 45.4% and 18.2% of the studies. Conclusion Based on prior validation and experience, we propose to use the Wexner score as the first step for fecal incontinence assessment in inflammatory bowel disease trials. Anal manometry and/or endoanal ultrasonography should be taken into account in the case of positive questionnaires.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%