The British journal of surgery · 2008
A classification system for faecal incontinence based on anorectal investigations.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Thekkinkattil D K, Lim M, Stojkovic S G, Finan P J, Sagar P M, Burke D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence is a socially disabling condition that affects a heterogeneous population of patients. There is no standardization of investigations, and treatment outcomes are variable. The major limitation for comparing the results from different studies is the lack of a pretreatment classification of incontinence. The aim of this study was to review the anorectal investigation findings and propose a simple, repeatable classification for faecal incontinence.
METHODS: Patients who had anorectal investigations for defaecatory disorders from February 2000 to September 2006 were analysed retrospectively. All patients had anorectal manometry, anal mucosal electrosensitivity testing and endoanal ultrasonography.
RESULTS: Of a total of 1294 patients, 135 were excluded, leaving 1159 (460 continent and 699 incontinent) for analysis. The patients were divided into four groups: traumatic incontinence, neuropathic faecal incontinence, combined faecal incontinence and idiopathic faecal incontinence. The manometric variables and demographics were distinct in these groups.
CONCLUSION: Patients with faecal incontinence can be classified into different groups with distinct pathophysiological variables. Such a classification system will enable comparison and interpretation of the outcomes of different studies and also help in the selection of patients for appropriate treatments.
METHODS: Patients who had anorectal investigations for defaecatory disorders from February 2000 to September 2006 were analysed retrospectively. All patients had anorectal manometry, anal mucosal electrosensitivity testing and endoanal ultrasonography.
RESULTS: Of a total of 1294 patients, 135 were excluded, leaving 1159 (460 continent and 699 incontinent) for analysis. The patients were divided into four groups: traumatic incontinence, neuropathic faecal incontinence, combined faecal incontinence and idiopathic faecal incontinence. The manometric variables and demographics were distinct in these groups.
CONCLUSION: Patients with faecal incontinence can be classified into different groups with distinct pathophysiological variables. Such a classification system will enable comparison and interpretation of the outcomes of different studies and also help in the selection of patients for appropriate treatments.