Gastroenterology · 2002
Significance of pelvic floor muscles in anal incontinence.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fernández-Fraga Xose, Azpiroz Fernando, Malagelada Juan-R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The pathophysiology of anal incontinence may be elusive using current parameters. Our aim was to establish the role of the levator ani in anal continence.
METHODS: In 53 patients with anal incontinence, 30 with constipation as disease controls, and 15 healthy controls, we evaluated incontinence severity by a 0-12 scale, anorectal function by standard manometric tests, and levator ani contraction by a perineal dynamometer.
RESULTS: Patients with incontinence exhibited various physiologic abnormalities (3.2 +/- 0.3 per patient), but multiple regression analysis showed that levator ani contraction was the independent variable with strongest relation to the severity of incontinence (R = -0.84; P < 0.0001), as well as a predictive factor of the response to treatment (R = 0.53; P < 0.01). Furthermore, in contrast to other physiologic parameters, clinical improvement in response to treatment (4.4 +/- 0.5 score vs. 7.9 +/- 0.5 score pre; P < 0.001) was associated with a marked and significant strengthening of levator ani contraction (448 +/- 47 g vs. 351 +/- 35 g pre; P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We have shown the importance of levator ani failure in understanding the etiology of anal incontinence and in predicting response to treatment.
METHODS: In 53 patients with anal incontinence, 30 with constipation as disease controls, and 15 healthy controls, we evaluated incontinence severity by a 0-12 scale, anorectal function by standard manometric tests, and levator ani contraction by a perineal dynamometer.
RESULTS: Patients with incontinence exhibited various physiologic abnormalities (3.2 +/- 0.3 per patient), but multiple regression analysis showed that levator ani contraction was the independent variable with strongest relation to the severity of incontinence (R = -0.84; P < 0.0001), as well as a predictive factor of the response to treatment (R = 0.53; P < 0.01). Furthermore, in contrast to other physiologic parameters, clinical improvement in response to treatment (4.4 +/- 0.5 score vs. 7.9 +/- 0.5 score pre; P < 0.001) was associated with a marked and significant strengthening of levator ani contraction (448 +/- 47 g vs. 351 +/- 35 g pre; P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: We have shown the importance of levator ani failure in understanding the etiology of anal incontinence and in predicting response to treatment.