Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a physically and psychosocially debilitating disorder which negatively impacts quality of life (QOL). It bears a significant burden not only on patients but also on their families, caretakers as well as society as a whole. Even though it is considered a somewhat common condition, especially as women age, the prevalence is often underestimated due to patients' reluctance to report symptoms or seek care. The evaluation and treatment of FI can be also hindered by lack of understanding of the current management options among healthcare providers and how they impact on QOL. This article provides a comprehensive review on the impact of FI and its treatment on QOL in women.

Keywords

accidental bowel leakage anal incontinence bowel incontinence bowel leakage defecation disorders defecatory disorders fecal incontinence quality of life

Fecal incontinence (FI), defined as the complaint of involuntary loss of liquid/solid stool, is a physically and psychosocially debilitating condition which negatively impacts quality of life (QOL). This condition can lead to social isolation, embarrassment, loss of employment as well as intimate relationships and self-esteem [1 –3]. In addition, the impact of FI is influenced not only by severity, but multiple other individual factors, such as gender, age, lifestyle, occupation, cultural issues and personal values. The prevalence of FI in community-dwelling women varies considerably depending on the studied population and the definition of FI with rates of 2.2–25% [4 –11]. Approximately 18 million adults in the USA are affected [12].

The association of gender and FI is controversial [6,13]. Many clinical studies have shown a higher prevalence of FI in women, especially among those seeking gynecologic care (28.4%) [13]. Women may be more willing to report FI than men [14,15]. However, recent epidemiologic studies tend to show an equal gender distribution [11,16 –18].

Anal incontinence (AI) and FI are often used interchangeably, however, the terms are not synonymous. According to the terminology by International Urogynecology Association (IUGA) and International Continence Society (ICS), AI is the complaint of involuntary loss of feces and/or flatus, whereas FI pertains to involuntary loss of feces [17]. Both conditions cause social or hygienic problems.

Seeking care

The prevalence of FI is often underestimated due to patients' reluctance to report symptoms or to seek care [19]. When women are asked, 51% had spoken to a friend or partner about their FI, whereas only 10–30% had reported symptoms to a physician, often attributing to delayed diagnosis and management [11,20 –26]. There appears to be a positive correlation between health seeking behavior and symptom severity. Bharucha et al. reported that 48% of women with severe FI had consulted a physician for their symptoms compared with the overall help seeking rate of 10% in his study population [27]. Out of those who sought care, women discussed their FI symptoms with a family physician (56%), an internist (19%), a gastroenterologist (27%) and were less likely to talk to surgical specialists, such as a colorectal surgeon (7%) and gynecologist/urogynecologist (7%) [20,28].

Healthcare professionals are often reluctant to inquire about FI not only because of the complexity in evaluation but also because of a lack of clinical experience and knowledge on current management approaches. Only 54% of primary care providers screen for FI, and of those who do, 40% believed that conservative management is not effective for treatment of FI [29 –31].

Dunivan et al. found that 36% of patients presenting for primary care reported FI symptoms in the past month, however, only 2.7% of those with self-reported FI had a clinical diagnosis of FI in the medical record [32]. In another prospective study including patients with symptoms of FI, only 3% presented with a chief complaint of FI, and the remaining (97%) reported incontinence only on direct questioning [33]. This emphasizes the importance of asking patients directly about FI symptoms to actively identify and engage potential patients who would otherwise suffer in silence.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) released a consensus and state-of-the-science statement regarding incontinence in adults in 2007 that addressed the suffering and burden of incontinence in adults [16,18]. The statement emphasized the importance of efforts to raise public awareness of incontinence and the benefits of prevention and management in order to eliminate stigma, promote disclosure and care seeking as well as to reduce suffering [16,18]. It has been recently reported that women with FI prefer the term, accidental bowel leakage (ABL), to describe their condition [16,20]. As care providers, when speaking with our patients or publically regarding this sensitive subject, it is recommended that we use the term ABL.

Communication by clinicians that is perceived as ‘blaming the patient for stool leakage’ or ‘belittling the impact of FI’ discourages further discussion and care seeking. Referring to incontinence as ‘failure to control’ might be perceived as being capable of control leakage if one wanted or tried harder.

Special populations

As most women with FI do not express their complaint, physicians should actively inquire about FI symptoms. Recognizing common risk factors (Box 1) is helpful in identifying high-risk patients.

Frail older women

The estimated prevalence of FI is disproportionally higher in the older woman. FI affects one in five community living women aged 65+ [12]. By 2030, more than 20% of women will be 65 years or older. As the older population increases, the burden of healthcare in the community will become even more substantial [6,12]. FI is not an inevitable consequence of aging. Most studies use the definition of age 65 or above, arbitrarily chosen, to describe ‘old.’ Many women above the age of 65 continue to be very active and healthy. These people are different from the frail elderly, who are over the age of 65 with a clinical presentation or phenotype combining impaired physical activity, mobility, muscle strength, motor processing, cognition, nutrition and endurance, most often due to multiple comorbid chronic illnesses. Frailty is considered an independent risk factor for FI [34,35]. In addition, the impact of FI in the frail older adult often affects not only the individuals but also their caregivers. As a result, many older women do not volunteer their problems to healthcare providers not only due to embarrassment but also concerns of being a burden to their caregivers [29]. FI is one of the leading causes for institutionalization of affected individuals often due to the psychological distress on their family and/or caregivers [30,36 –38]. The prevalence of FI in institutionalized adults is as high as 50% [39,40].

Management of FI in the frail elderly woman is challenging, as it is often accompanied by underlying physical and psychological impairments with other geriatric conditions. FI is also a strong factor for debilitating falls [41]. Reduced mobility requiring toileting assistance and accessibility to toilet demands a higher level of care.

Pharmacologic treatment warrants special attention due to altered drug metabolism and polypharmacy seen in this population, as they are more susceptible to adverse effects. For surgical approaches, the question of age itself as a surgical risk factor is controversial. Factors such as age-related physiologic changes, underlying disease state and the type of procedures performed can all contribute to higher surgical mortality and morbidity rates than the general population. Existing reports show that there is limited awareness regarding appropriate assessment and treatment options of FI, especially among primary care physicians, even though there has been a strong emphasis on the importance of identifying treatable causes of FI in frail older women. As a result, physicians often provide passive treatment with incontinence products without identifying treatable causes of FI in the frail older woman [29,42].

Pregnancy/childbirth

One of the main risk factors in women with AI is related to pregnancy, childbirth and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). Some women may consider AI as a normal part or inevitable consequence of childbirth, thus many tend not to seek medical treatment. In a British study, 37% of primiparous women reported at least one symptom of AI during the last 4 weeks of pregnancy. Out of those with AI, 3–10% reported that their symptoms were affecting their QOL, especially ‘coping’ and ‘embarrassment’ domains being highly impacted [43]. Handa et al. found approximately one in five young primiparous women with FI had a ‘moderate’ to ‘extreme’ life impact. These primiparous women with FI had decreased QOL as evidenced by lower SF-12 mental component summary scores and self-rated health utility index scores [44]. These studies suggest that FI symptoms are a burden, even for young, relatively healthy women within 6 months of delivering their first child. This can psychologically affect new mothers leading to problems with bonding with their newborns, and neglect, affecting the infant's well-being. Similar studies demonstrated that 30–50% of pregnant women experience AI in late pregnancy, and the prevalence decreases 6–12 months postpartum [43,45 –49].

A longitudinal study of 3763 women demonstrated that the rate of FI after childbirth at 12-year follow-up was 6%. However, 43% of women who had reported FI at 3 months postpartum continued to have persistent FI at 12 years. These women with persistent FI had significantly lower SF-12 scores. The authors also demonstrated that forceps-assisted vaginal delivery and obesity are strong modifiable risk factors [45].

Cesarean delivery is often discussed for the purpose to protect pelvic floor functions despite the lack of supportive data. The Cochrane review on cesarean delivery for the prevention of anal incontinence was published in 2010. The authors concluded that no benefit was demonstrated for cesarean delivery over vaginal delivery in the review of 21 nonrandomized studies, thus cesarean delivery should not be recommended to women with average obstetric risk, solely for the purpose for the prevention of FI. However, the decision making is often complicated, especially among women with previous sphincter injuries. In this case, it is reasonable to offer cesarean delivery to prevent further trauma to the sphincters [50].

Obstetricians can play an important role in reducing burdens of expectant and new mothers by routinely discussing AI symptoms in pregnancy and postpartum to increase awareness and possibly promote help-seeking behaviors.

Although 7–41% of primiparous women may sustain an OASIS, not all are symptomatic immediately after delivery. As many as 70% of sphincter defects related to OASIS were asymptomatic [51 –53]. Bharucha et al. reported that the median age of FI onset in women was 55 years old, a few decades after OASIS. This may be due to the ‘multiple-hit hypothesis’ where the OASIS (the initial ‘hit’) is compounded by other factors such as pelvic laxity resulting from stretch-induced pudendal neuropathy and menopause, in addition to aging [27].

Box 1.

Risk factors.

Age

Limited mobility

Obesity

Abnormal stool consistency (diarrhea, loose stool, obstipation, fecal impaction)

Hemorrhoids

Pregnancy, parity

Birth trauma (operative vaginal delivery, high-degree laceration, episiotomy)

Perianal surgery or trauma (sphincterotomy, hemorrhoidectomy, anal dilation)

Bariatric surgery

Urinary incontinence (dual incontinence)

Prolapse (pelvic, rectal)

Neurologic (dementia, stroke, spina bifda, spinal cord lesions, neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, cauda equina)

Inflammation (inflammatory bowel disease, fistula, radiation)

Congenital abnormality

Double incontinence

Women with urinary incontinence (UI) are more likely to have concomitant AI than those without UI [23,54,55]. The presence of UI symptoms in women with AI (double incontinence, DI) can further decrease QOL [55,56]. Selcuk et al. demonstrated that women with DI scored worse on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire – Short Form 7 and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, compared with women with UI only [23]. Other studies demonstrated similar findings that sexual life is more adversely affected, and severe anxiety is more common in women with DI compared with single incontinence [23,57]. The prevalence of AI was 28%, and DI was 9% among women presenting for gynecologic care [13]. Given the negative impact on QOL in women with DI, healthcare providers treating women with UI should also inquire about FI symptoms as an opportunity to reach out to more women.

Impact of FI

Living with FI

For women with FI, going out or traveling causes great anxiety and much planning. Many women fast for hours or days as a strategy to avoid bowel leakage when they have to leave their house. The availability and accessibility of a restroom is a major concern. They are acutely aware of bowel control and are conscious of where the nearest toilets are when they are away from home. This process is known as ‘toilet mapping’ to reduce the risk of a bowel accident [58]. Many women either postpone or avoid meetings and trips. FI has limited women's ability to concentrate on work, reduced productivity and eventually forced early retirement for some of those who suffer with their condition [59].

Women with FI are very self-conscious about their body image, often choosing clothing to conceal pads and to hide stains in case of accidents. Many wear only small pads not large diapers because of visibility through clothing [59,60]. For these reasons, they feel that they have succumbed to the condition and are often hopeless.

Psychological impact

There is a significant association between FI and major depression with worsening scores on the Patient Health Questionnaires (PHQ) predicting worse QOL scores [24,61,62]. The effects of treatment can affect psychological status. Subjects with FI who have had an unsuccessful surgical intervention for FI appeared to have significantly higher scores on anxiety and depression scales than those who had successful surgical outcomes [63]. In addition, psychological symptoms may hinder treatment of FI. Heyman et al. noted that mild depression on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) predicted treatment failure using biofeedback therapy (p = 0.017). Subjects who discontinued treatment before completion scored in the moderate depression range on the BDI [63].

Factors impacting QOL

Bowel urgency appears to be an independent factor impacting QOL in women with FI in existing studies. Other factors include stool consistency, UI and multiple chronic illnesses [12,13,27, 64].

Impact on female sexual function

When asked about sexuality, many women are reluctant to bring up the issue with their healthcare providers. Women with FI symptoms tend to have intercourse less frequently. Reports on correlations between FI severity and sexual satisfaction are somewhat inconsistent. Some studies have demonstrated that woman with FI have lower sexual desire, satisfaction and worse sexual functioning compared with those without FI [65,66]. Imhoff et al. demonstrated that women with FI episodes once weekly or more tended to report lower sexual satisfaction and greater limitation of sexual activity compared with those with FI episodes less than once a month [65]. However, Patel et al. reported symptoms of AI were not associated with worse sexual functioning demonstrated using the PISQ-12 after controlling for prolapse stage and age [67]. Healthcare providers should ask directly about the impact of FI on their sexual life, as patients are unlikely to initiate the conversation. They should approach the patient with compassion and provide empathy in a stigma-free environment without being judgmental.

Economic impact

Limited data are available on the direct and indirect healthcare cost associated with FI. Healthcare costs are estimated 55% higher in people with FI than those without, roughly accounting for US$11 billion annually [32,68]. FI is one of the leading causes of nursing home admission [2,69].

Direct costs include physician and clinic fees, hospital fees, costs for medications and continence supplies (absorbent pads, barrier or moisturizer, cleansing products, other appliances) as well as transportation costs for the purposes of obtaining healthcare. Indirect costs include work absenteeism, impaired work performance and changes in job status (choosing a lower wage job to limit contact with the public, the lost wages related to leaving work or retiring prematurely). A survey of 5400 US adults noted that 13.2% of those with FI reported being ‘too sick to work or go to school.’ This rate increased to 29.4% with those having large volume FI [70]. People with large-volume (>400 g stool per day) FI reported missing an average of 50 days from work in the past year compared with 4.9 days among those without FI [70]. In addition, indirect costs also account for family members missing work to care for the patients and the disability claim payment to people with FI [71]. Thus, estimating indirect costs for FI is challenging.

The average annual cost per person including direct medical and nonmedical costs, as well as lost productivity was $4110 (in 2010 US dollars). Of these costs, direct medical and nonmedical costs averaged $2353 and $209, respectively, whereas the indirect cost associated with productivity loss averaged $1549 per patient annually [72]. FI severity was significantly associated with higher annual direct costs. Dunivan et al. [32] reported that the average annual direct medical costs for patients with FI were $2897 higher than those without FI (in 2005 US dollars). This study excluded costs related to surgical procedures and hospitalizations, possibly contributing to the lower estimates. A Dutch study estimated an annual total cost of $ 2169 ($2628 in 2004 US dollars) per FI patient, of which $714 was for direct medical cost, $337 for direct nonmedical cost and $1118 for indirect costs [73].

Of the medical expenses, the average cost for evaluation and treatment for FI was estimated to be $17,166 per patient [2,74]. Community-dwelling women spend a substantial amount of money for supplies including diapers, absorbent pads and medications [2]. Four hundred million dollars per year are spent on adult diapers, which are usually not covered by insurance. The costs for conservative treatment have not been well studied. Sung et al. estimated that in-patient procedures for female FI alone cost $24.5 million (in 2003 US dollars) [75]. Other study findings are similar reflecting medical costs, including surgical and in-patient care, which are substantial [71,76].

Continence mechanism

The FI mechanism is dependent upon anal sphincter function, rectal sensation, adequate rectal capacity and compliance, colonic transit time, stool consistency, cognitive and neurologic factors. Incontinence occurs when any one or more of these factors are impacted. Proper diagnosis and treatment of FI requires an understanding of the complex pelvic floor musculature, innervation and function, as well as compensatory mechanisms. Discussion of the specific mechanism of continence is beyond the scope of this article, and can be found in other reviews [4,68,77,78].

Evaluation – how to measure the impact of FI

Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes

One of the goals of evaluation is to ascertain symptom severity and impact on the patient's QOL. Patient impact can be evaluated in several ways. The traditional method is to obtain a clinical history documented by healthcare providers. However, patient-reported outcomes, such as bowel diaries and questionnaires, are an important part of impact evaluation representing the patients' perspective. Assessment of outcomes reported by healthcare providers has been shown to underestimate the degree of symptom bother perceived by patients [79].

How patients and physicians rank the severity of FI is different. Surgeons have been shown to put greater importance on incontinence of solid stool over other types of leakage (liquid stool and gas). In addition, physicians emphasize a physiological interpretation of events (frequency, amount of lost stool, type of FI), whereas patients are more conscious of leakage that can affect personal hygiene and provoke social embarrassment [80,81]. As the focus of patients may differ from that of physicians, it is important that a combination of severity scale and patient-reported QOL measures be used.

Continence diary

Continence diaries to document bowel habits and episodes of incontinence are a very useful tool to measure the severity of symptoms and are more reliable than patient verbal self-reporting [77,82]. One limitation of diaries is that it is highly influenced by the individual's willingness to do them and level of commitment.

It is interesting to note that total FI severity scores based on recall (from patient history) compared with daily report (from bowel diary) are different. The total FI severity score based on recall was significantly lower than the score based on their diary. In addition, many women with FI have to rely on caregivers, who may not understand the magnitude of incontinence that the patients are suffering. Fisher et al. found that caretakers reported lesser severity on recall compared with their patients [82]. The results of this study support the use of bowel diaries in order to accurately obtain information about the severity of FI symptoms.

Validated questionnaires

Most agreed outcome measures reflecting treatment of FI should be a combination of incontinence severity and incontinence-related QOL. Characterizing the severity of FI is important in order to choose a treatment modality as well as to assess the treatment outcomes. The Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) was developed by surgeons with patient input for assessment of severity independent of direct clinical assessment [82].

The importance of qualitative research on the impact of FI on QOL gained support in the 1990s. Current data support that disease-specific health-related QOL (HRQOL) questionnaires, instead of general questionnaires, have been shown to best quantify the impact of FI [83,84]. The existing questionnaires for QOL were recently evaluated by the International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI), using three grades of recommendation (Table 1) [19,85 –88]. Although multiple instruments are available to evaluate HRQOL, healthcare providers need to carefully choose an instrument that is not only appropriate for the purpose (clinical vs research settings) but also valid (measures what it intends to measure) and reliable (demonstrate consistency when the assessment is repeated). In addition, for an instrument to be useful in clinical practice, it must be responsive (sensitive to detect change in a patient's condition and that change has to be meaningful to the patient) [86 –88].

Table 1.

Fecal incontinence health-related quality of life questionnaires and the international consultation on Incontinence Committee Recommendation.

Questionnaires	Severity	QOL	Reliability	Validity	Responsiveness	Gender	Grade†
FIQL		+	+	+		M/F	A
MHQ‡	Some§	+	+	+		F	B
ICIQ-B	+	+	+	+	+	M/F	A+

†

Grade A: Highly recommended; Grade B: Recommended; +: Additional evidence of published content validity

‡

The committee recommendation for the M MHQ is currently not available.

+ for the MMHQ.

QOL: Quality of life.

The Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life index (FIQOL) is a validated quality outcome measure comprising 29 questions divided into four individual scales of lifestyle, coping/behavior, depression/self-perception and embarrassment [87]. The Manchester health questionnaire (MHQ) comprises 31 items with subscales of role limitations, physical/social limitations, personal relationships, emotions and sleep/energy to measure HRQOL in women with AI [87]. The modified MHQ (MMHQ) which includes all the questions from FISI is a valid tool for assessing severity of FI and its impact on QOL, and has been shown to meet standards for both validity and reliability [89].

The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Bowel Symptoms (ICIQ-B) was most recently developed to evaluate symptoms of AI and impact on HRQOL in a single scale for a general adult population [19]. This tool has been shown to have all three factors (validity, reliability and responsiveness), making it one of the most valid tools assessing the impact of FI [88].

Multiple validated questionnaires have both long and short forms. The short forms of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) provide a reliable and valid alternative to those of the long forms [90,91]. Interestingly, a higher correlation between long and short form versions was noted with the Colorectal-Anal scales of PFDI than the other two scales (UI and POP) [91]. Using the short-forms should lower the burden of completing the questionnaires by patients as well as interpreting by clinicians. This promotes more frequent use of these questionnaires. It was traditionally believed that the more severe the condition is, the higher the impact of the condition has on a patient's QOL, thus the two measures (severity and QOL) should correlate. However, more recent data demonstrate a weak correlation between severity and some QOL measures [24,64,80,92 –94].

Impact of treatment on QOL

As FI is a complex condition, it is best managed by a multidisciplinary team comprised of primary care, continence specialist (urogynecologists, colorectal surgeons and gastroenterologists), nurses, physical therapists, secondary care specialists such as neurologists and often geriatricians.

Prevention

Preventive measures for FI are categorized into primary, secondary and tertiary. The goals of primary prevention should focus on eliminating modifiable risk factors for FI. Those factors include controlling diarrhea, preventing as well as treating obesity and using surgical and obstetrical practices to avoid future sphincter damage. Episiotomy, specifically median episiotomy has been associated with a higher rate of OASIS. Thus, routine practice of episiotomy should be avoided. Whether cesarean delivery should be performed to protect against OASIS is controversial, especially as primary prevention [2,18,95].

Rey et al. demonstrated that urgency is one of the strongest independent risk factors (OR: 24.9; 95% CI: 10.6, 58.4) for becoming incontinent in community-dwelling women. Among those reporting urgency, 72% actually suffered FI. In this study, 37% of those who developed new urgency became incontinent during the 10-year study period, compared with the 7% overall 10-year incident rate of FI [96]. This information can be helpful as a possible marker in screening women to determine who may be more likely to develop FI in subsequent years.

Secondary prevention focuses on screening and identifying women with FI at earlier stages, to avoid invasive treatment before progression of the condition. To reduce the gap between the high prevalence of FI and low rate of seeking care, healthcare providers should initiate the conversation by simply asking patients about their bowel health.

Tertiary prevention focuses on reducing or minimizing the consequences of a condition. The goal of tertiary prevention is to delay or avoid the onset of complications and disability related to the condition. Most medical and surgical interventions are classified as tertiary prevention. All three preventative approaches are necessary to reduce impact on women's health and QOL.

Conservative management

Conservative treatment can be very effective for the management of FI. Healthcare providers should share coping strategies such as having cleansing kits, as well as coaching patients how to plan for and reduce unpredictable bowel accidents. Many women are unaware of the effect of dietary modifications to reduce incontinence episodes [97,98]. Certain foods, such as sweets, chocolate, caffeine, alcohol, rich and spicy foods, fried foods and dairy, can aggravate stool leakage, whereas fiber supplementation can alleviate FI symptoms [97]. The timing and portion of meals should also be included in a bowel management program. Bowel diaries can be helpful in predicting when accidents may occur.

Continence products & QOL

Using appropriate continence products improves QOL even though cure is not achieved. The purpose of continence products is to contain and conceal stool. The fear of smelling is a major concern for many who suffer from FI, and women are least satisfied with odor control among different aspects of absorbent products [99]. Thus, there have been efforts to develop products to prevent, absorb or control odor associated with stool or fatal leakage [100]. If successful, women with FI will feel more confident in public, reduce embracement, maintain hygiene, reduce skin irritation, infection and become less dependent to caretakers [101].

There is a wide variety of products commercially available which may be overwhelming and confusing to caretakers and patients. The goal of healthcare providers is to identify the needs of patients and give guidance to which products will be effective. However, this is challenging as current recommendations are based on expert opinion and experiences by patients and caretakers, and are also influenced by manufacturers. A Cochrane review of absorbent products for moderate-to-heavy incontinence identified only two eligible trials [102]. Both trials were limited by an insufficient sample size to draw definite conclusions about which product designs were best for FI. No particular design of absorbent products was found to be better for protecting skin against incontinence-associated dermatitis and secondary infection [103]. Skin damage appeared to be dependent on the concentration and length of exposure to feces. Frequent cleansing of skin soiled with feces should occur immediately after leakage [104]. For skin irritation and protection, barrier products such as moisturizers, barrier cream and ointment are commonly used.

Anal plug & QOL

The most common complaint with anal plug use is discomfort and failure to retain the device. Discomfort rates range widely from 10 to 33%. Many patients use them on a limited basis [105]. The reported outcomes of existing data on anal plugs are limited to frequency of FI episodes, patient satisfaction and tolerance [106]. The impact of the anal plug use on QOL has not been well documented. Currently, there has been a great deal of effort to develop an anal plug that is more tolerable.

Behavioral therapy/biofeedback

Pelvic muscle exercises and biofeedback alleviate FI symptoms by improving pelvic floor muscle strength, sensory-motor coordination and enhancing the ability to perceive rectal distension [107]. Currently, there is no standardized biofeedback treatment protocol, likely contributing to the wide range of reported success rates of exercises and/or biofeedback from 38 to as high as 100% [21,78,108]. Existing data show that most methods of biofeedback and pelvic floor exercise are equally effective, either alone or combined [109,110].

Pelvic floor therapy requires the patient and therapist to commit to treatment for a number of weeks to months. One study found that only 44% of patients with FI who were recommended biofeedback therapy completed the treatment [111]. However, it is important to note that those who completed biofeedback reported an 80% positive response to treatment. Other studies confirmed over 70% improvement in both severity and QOL scores [107,111].

Conservative treatment also includes use of medications such as fiber supplementation, antimotility drugs (loperamide, diphenoxylate and atropine), anticholinergics (hyoscyamine), amitriptyline and bile-acid binders [112]. The current literature on pharmacological treatment focuses on the efficacy of drugs by assessing the changes in FI symptom severity, frequency, consistency of stool as well as physiological measures [113]. Well-designed controlled trials are needed to assess the impact of pharmacological treatment of FI on QOL.

Surgical management

Sphincter repair & QOL

In general, surgery should be considered in selected patients who have failed conservative measures. In most patients with FI due to sphincter trauma, overlapping sphincter plication is effective, at least in the short term [21,114]. Initial symptom improvement has been seen in 70–80% of patients, however, success rates deteriorate over time with long term (≥5 years) success ranging 20–58% [21,94]. No patients remained completely continent to liquid and solid stool at 10 years [21]. Zutshi et al. reported no difference in FIQOL scores between 5 and 10 years postoperatively, despite a significant worsening of incontinence severity [115]. Existing studies consistently show that there appears to be a weak correlation between long-term QOL and FI severity scores. Patients' QOL and satisfaction remained relatively high despite the fact that sphincter function deteriorates over the long term following sphincteroplasty [25,94,116].

Sacral nerve stimulation & QOL

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) was first introduced as a minimally invasive surgical option for treatment of patients with refractory FI in 1995 in Europe [117]. In the USA Interstim^® was approved by the US FDA for treatment of refractory chronic FI in April 2011. SNS improves FI symptoms in patients even with disrupted sphincters, including previously failed sphincteroplasty [60,118].

In the pivotal US multicenter trial of Interstim^® treatment for FI, 90% of subjects proceeded from temporary to permanent implantation [119,120]. This study was extended, and the long-term durability of SNS was published in 2013 reporting 36% complete continence and 89% therapeutic success at 5 years [121]. Other studies have demonstrated over 80% of patients achieving a greater than or equal to 50% reduction in incontinence episodes per week with sustained long-term results (up to 14 years) [117,120]. Matzel et al. showed that FIQOL scores were significantly improved in all four scales, and SF-36 scores improved in seven out of eight scales [122]. Out of the SF-36 scales, the highest impacts were social functioning and mental health, however, only the former was statistically significant [122]. In 2011, a meta-analysis including 34 studies (790 patients) was published with the FIQOL data from nine studies (199 patients) and general QOL SF-36 outcomes from seven studies (102 patients). Both the FIQOL and SF-36 scores improved significantly in all categories post-treatment after SNS placement [123]. QOL scores of patients followed for at least 5 years appear to be improved both in the short and long term with SNS [119,124 –128].

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation & QOL

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), initially used in the treatment of overactive bladder symptoms, is now gaining ground as a treatment for FI, but is not currently approved by the FDA. Compared to Interstim^®, PTNS requires repetitive treatments to maintain effectiveness. However, PTNS is a minimally invasive outpatient technique with almost no associated morbidity [129,130]. Most studies on PTNS have demonstrated an improvement in both objective and QOL measurements, where success rates of up to 60% have been reported [129,130]. Most recently, the largest prospective study with 115 patients and a median follow-up of 26 months (range, 12–42) reported that 52% of patients with FI demonstrated greater than equal to 50% reduction in FI episodes [131]. However, all studies are limited by short-term follow-up. In these studies, objective success was sustained at 12-month follow-up, whereas subjective success, improved significantly at 3-and 6–month follow-up [132 –134]. The ideal treatment protocol (interval and duration) has not been established. A potential disadvantage of PTNS includes frequent returns to clinic. A randomized controlled trail comparing SNS and PTNS in the treatment for FI is currently being performed (NCT01069016) [131].

Box 2.

Anal bulking materials.

Autologous fat

Teflon

Bovine glutaraldehyde cross-linked collagen (Contigen^®)

Carbon-coated zirconium beads (Durasphere^®)

Polydimethylsiloxane elastomer

Dextranomer in nonanimal stabilized hyaluronic acid (Solesta^™)

Hydrogel cross-linked with poly-acrylamide (Bioplastique^®)

Porcine dermal collagen (Permacol^™)

Synthetic calcium hydroxylapatite ceramic microspheres

Polyacrylonitrile in cylinder form

Perianal injectables, ‘bulking agents’ & QOL

The treatment of women with passive FI and internal anal sphincter (IAS) dysfunction remains challenging. Injection of a bulking agent to augment the closure of the proximal anal canal was first introduced in 1993 [135]. Ten materials have been introduced (Box 2) [136]. The advantage of anal bulking is its simplicity and minimal invasiveness. The newest injectable agent is sodium hyaluronate dextranomer microspheres (Solesta^™). Graf et al. demonstrated the short-term efficacy of Solesta^™ versus sham injection for FI where 52% of subjects in the treatment group had a greater than or equal to 50% reduction in incontinence episodes compared with 32% in the control group at 6 months. The placebo effect demonstrated in the study is compatible with other trials and cannot be negated, as there was no difference between arms observed at 3 months [135,136]. The treatment response increased to 69% at 12 months in this study population. The mean relative change compared with baseline in FIQOL scores for coping and behavior was significantly improved in the active treatment group versus placebo at 6 months. In addition, the mean FIQOL scores for all four subscales improved significantly between baseline and 12 months in the active treatment group [135]. The current data show that the majority of patients treated with injectables have good QOL improvement as reported on both global and FI QOL scores. A recent Cochrane review noted that the absence of long-term studies as well as limited data based on a single randomized controlled trial with a small sample size made definitive conclusions about the utility of injectables difficult [136]. While it may not offer complete resolution, anal bulking agents can alleviate symptoms and improve impact on QOL in some patients, especially with mild-to-moderate FI [22].

Secca® procedure & QOL

The Secca^® procedure is an application of a temperature-controlled radiofrequency (RF) energy to the IAS, and was approved by the FDA for the treatment of refractory FI in 2002. RF-induced injury to the IAS is thought to cause collagen deposition and fibrosis, potentially tightening the anal canal [137,138]. A 5-year follow-up study published in 2008 showed 84% had greater than or equal to 50% symptomatic improvement [137]. A study with 12-month follow-up reported that the mean FIQOL score improved overall as well as all subsets except for the depression subscale (trended toward improvement but did not reach significance). Other existing reports also noted that patient satisfaction and QOL scores showed improvement after Secca^® treatment [137,139]. However, no study had greater than 50 patients or follow-up longer than 5 years [137]. Further study is needed to define the indication and long-term QOL and impact outcomes.

Diversion – colostomy & QOL

Diversion with colostomy is often considered as a last resort for treating FI. However, it is an effective treatment which significantly improves QOL in patients who failed all other options. No randomized trials have been reported on colostomy, however, a cross-sectional survey by Colquhoun et al. revealed significantly higher scores both with the SF-36 and FIQOL among patients with colostomy compared with those without [140]. Questionnaire-based surveys have also shown that the majority of patients (83%) felt that living with a stoma did not restrict their QOL, and 84% would either probably or definitely choose to have the stoma again. When evaluating changes in QOL poststoma compared with prestoma on a scale of –5 (much worse) to +5 (much better), the median score was +4.5 [140,141]. A colostomy is a viable option for patients with severe FI and offers a definitive cure with improved impact on QOL. Healthcare providers should discuss the option of a stoma with patients having severe refractory incontinence as diversion provides a positive impact on QOL.

Conclusion & future perspective

FI is a debilitating condition which negatively impacts women's QOL. The prevalence of FI approaches 25% in older community-dwelling women. However, prevalence is often underestimated due to patients' reluctance to report their symptoms or seek care.

In the past decade, research and development of diagnostic testing has allowed better understanding of this multifactorial disorder and has yielded new diagnostic tools and treatment options. Treatment for FI is rarely curative. Thus, an individual approach with the consideration of modifiable risk factors and identification of women with FI at earlier stages may help to avoid progression and minimize complications. Yet, proper evaluation and treatment can be hindered by a lack of clinical experience and knowledge on current recommendations regarding FI management among healthcare providers.

Continence education includes raising awareness of FI in order to reduce the stigma associated with incontinence and to promote help seeking behaviors. There is an urgent need to evaluate current continence education programs, not only for the general public but also healthcare providers, as data are limited. Future research should focus on the content of educational materials, as well as evaluate effective means to educate health professionals. Implementing research outcomes to clinical practice is also a key to improve quality of care. Continued effort is needed to eliminate barriers to healthcare using a multidisciplinary approach to reduce the burden of FI on women, their family and on society.

Executive summary

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a physically and psychosocially debilitating condition affecting up to 25% of community-dwelling women.

Healthcare professionals are often reluctant to inquire about FI not only because of the complexity in assessment but also because of lack of clinical experience and knowledge on current management. It is important to actively screen for women with FI as the reported prevalence is often underestimated due to patients' reluctance to report symptoms or to seek care.

Living with FI causes psychological distress. Many women feel that they have succumbed to the condition and suffer from anxiety and depression. FI can also affect female sexual function. These women avoid having intimate relationships.

Both direct and indirect costs associated with FI are substantial. The economic impact of FI is a huge burden not only to individuals with FI, but also their family, as well as society as a whole.

Evaluation of FI entails ascertaining symptom severity and impact on patients' QOL. Perceptions of symptom severity are different between patients and physicians. The use of validated questionnaires along with bowel diaries and direct interviews are encouraged to fully understand the patient's symptoms.

As it is a multifactorial condition, FI is best managed by a multidisciplinary team. Prevention is the key to success in managing FI. Primary prevention focuses on eliminating modifiable risk factors whereas secondary prevention is to identify women with FI at earlier stages to avoid a worsening condition. Prevention will reduce impact on women's health and QOL.

Healthcare providers should fully understand current recommendations and options of FI treatment. Conservative treatment is first line and can be very effective. In general, surgery should be offered to patients who have either failed other therapies or are not ideal for conservative measures. In addition to sphincteroplasty, new surgical interventions have been introduced over the last couple of decades. As new interventions become available, healthcare providers need to critically evaluate the objective and subjective outcomes of each procedure to tailor treatment plans based on individuals' symptoms and expectations.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

H Richter is partially supported by the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2K24-DK068389. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as:

of interest; •• of considerable interest

Alimohammadian

Ahmadi

Janani

Mahjubi

. Suffering in silence: a community-based study of fecal incontinence in women. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 29(3), 401–406 (2014).

Makol

Grover

Whitehead

. Fecal incontinence in women: causes and treatment. Womens Health 4(5), 517–528 (2008).

Summarizes causes, evaluation and management of fecal incontinence.

Halland

Koloski

Jones

. Prevalence correlates and impact of fecal incontinence among older women. Dis. Colon. Rectum. 56(9), 1080–1086 (2013).

Wald

. Clinical practice. Fecal incontinence in adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 356(16), 1648–1655 (2007).

Markland

Richter

Burgio

Myers

Hernandez

Subak

. Weight loss improves fecal incontinence severity in overweight and obese women with urinary incontinence. Int. Urogynecol. J. 22(9), 1151–1157 (2011).

Nygaard

Barber

Burgio

. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 300(11), 1311–1316 (2008).

10.

Lawrence

Lukacz

Nager

Hsu

Luber

. Prevalence and co-occurrence of pelvic floor disorders in community-dwelling women. Obstet. Gynecol. 111(3), 678–685 (2008).

11.

Gleason

Markland

Greer

Szychowski

Gerten

Richter

. Anal sphincter repair for fecal incontinence: effect on symptom severity, quality of life, and anal sphincter squeeze pressures. Int. Urogynecol. J. 22(12), 1587–1592 (2011).

12.

Varma

Brown

Creasman

. Fecal incontinence in females older than aged 40 years: who is at risk? Dis. Colon. Rectum. 49(6), 841–851 (2006).

13.

Markland

Goode

Burgio

. Incidence and risk factors for fecal incontinence in black and white older adults: a population-based study. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 58(7), 1341–1346 (2010).

14.

Kang

Jung

Kwon

. Prevalence and predictive factors of fecal incontinence. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 18(1), 86–93 (2012).

15.

Whitehead

Borrud

Goode

. Fecal incontinence in US adults: epidemiology and risk factors. Gastroenterology 137(2), 512–517, 517.e511–512 (2009).

16.

Provides the epidemiology (the prevalence based on different types and frequencies of fecal incontinence [FI]) as well as modifiable risk factors based on the cross-sectional national health surveys conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The article discusses the potential use of this information for future prevention and treatment approaches for FI.

17.

Brown

Wexner

Segall

Brezoczky

Lukacz

. Accidental bowel leakage in the mature women's health study: prevalence and predictors. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 66(11), 1101–1108 (2012).

18.

Boreham

Richter

Kenton

. Anal incontinence in women presenting for gynecologic care: prevalence, risk factors, and impact upon quality of life. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192(5), 1637–1642 (2005).

19.

Jansson

Hanson

Sillén

Hellström

. Voiding pattern and acquisition of bladder control from birth to age 6 years – a longitudinal study. J. Urol. 174(1), 289–293 (2005).

20.

Abrams

Cardozo

Fall

. The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Urology 61(1), 37–49 (2003).

21.

Haylen

de Ridder

Freeman

. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol. Urodyn. 29(1), 4–20 (2010).

22.

Landefeld

Bowers

Feld

. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: prevention of fecal and urinary incontinence in adults. Ann. Intern. Med. 148(6), 449–458 (2008).

23.

Cotterill

Norton

Avery

Abrams

Donovan

. A patient-centered approach to developing a comprehensive symptom and quality of life assessment of anal incontinence. Dis. Colon. Rectum. 51(1), 82–87 (2008).

24.

Brown

Wexner

Segall

Brezoczky

Lukacz

. Quality of life impact in women with accidental bowel leakage. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 66(11), 1109–1116 (2012).

25.

Rao SS, Committee ACoGPP. Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. American College of Gastroenterology Practice Parameters Committee. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 99(8), 1585–1604 (2004).

26.

Watson

Koshy

Sagar

. Anal bulking agents for faecal incontinence. Colorectal. Dis. 14(Suppl. 3), 29–33 (2012).

27.

Selcuk

Cam

Asoglu

Karateke

. The effect of concealed concomitant anal incontinence symptoms in patients with urinary incontinence on their quality of life. Int. Urogynecol. J. 23(12), 1781–1784 (2012).

28.

Smith

Menees

Saad

Chey

Fenner

. Factors associated with quality of life among women with fecal incontinence. Int. Urogynecol. J. 24(3), 493–499 (2013).

29.

Van Koughnett

Wexner

. Current management of fecal incontinence: choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes. World J. Gastroenterol. 19(48), 9216–9230 (2013).

30.

Summarizes existing treatment options and discusses their indications and outcomes.

31.

Aitola

Lehto

Fonsell

Huhtala

. Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 30 years or more in general population. Colorectal. Dis. 12(7), 687–691 (2010).

32.

Bharucha

Zinsmeister

Locke

. Prevalence and burden of fecal incontinence: a population-based study in women. Gastroenterology 129(1), 42–49 (2005).

33.

Discusses various factors that have significant impact on women with FI.

34.

Manchio

Sanders

. Fecal incontinence: help for patients who suffer silently. J. F am. Pract. 62(11), 640–650 (2013).

35.

Thekkinkattil

Lim

Finan

Sagar

Burke

. Awareness of investigations and treatment of faecal incontinence among the general practitioners: a postal questionnaire survey. Colorectal Dis. 10(3), 263–267 (2008).

36.

Grover

Busby-Whitehead

Palmer

. Survey of geriatricians on the effect of fecal incontinence on nursing home referral. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 58(6), 1058–1062 (2010).

37.

Nyrop

Grover

Palsson

. Likelihood of nursing home referral for fecally incontinent elderly patients is influenced by physician views on nursing home care and outpatient management of fecal incontinence. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 13(4), 350–354 (2012).

38.

Dunivan

Heymen

Palsson

. Fecal incontinence in primary care: prevalence, diagnosis, and health care utilization. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 202(5), 493 (2010).

39.

Alsheik

Coyne

Hawes

. Fecal incontinence: prevalence, severity, and quality of life data from an outpatient gastroenterology practice. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2012, 947694 (2012).

40.

Ferrucci

Guralnik

Studenski

. Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons: a consensus report. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 52(4), 625–634 (2004).

41.

Fried

Tangen

Walston

. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 56(3), M146–M156 (2001).

42.

Markland

Goode

Burgio

. Correlates of urinary, fecal, and dual incontinence in older African-American and white men and women. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 56(2), 285–290 (2008).

43.

Goode

Burgio

Halli

. Prevalence and correlates of fecal incontinence in community-dwelling older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 53(4), 629–635 (2005).

44.

Quander

Morris

Melson

Bienias

Evans

. Prevalence of and factors associated with fecal incontinence in a large community study of older individuals. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 100(4), 905–909 (2005).

45.

Schnelle

Spector

Glance

Mukamel

. The “Nursing Home Compare” measure of urinary/fecal incontinence: cross-sectional variation, stability over time, and the impact of case mix. Health Serv. Res. 45(1), 79–97 (2010).

46.

Schnelle

Simmons

Beuscher

Peterson

Habermann

Leung

. Prevalence of constipation symptoms in fecally incontinent nursing home residents. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 57(4), 647–652 (2009).

47.

Farage

Miller

Berardesca

Maibach

. Psychosocial and societal burden of incontinence in the aged population: a review. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 277(4), 285–290 (2008).

48.

Wagg

Lowe

Peel

Potter

. Do self-reported ‘integrated’ continence services provide high-quality continence care? Age Ageing 38(6), 730–733 (2009).

49.

Johannessen

MØrkved

Stordahl

Sandvik

Wibe

. Anal incontinence and Quality of Life in late pregnancy: a cross-sectional study. BJOG 121(8), 978–987 (2014).

50.

Handa

Zyczynski

Burgio

. The impact of fecal and urinary incontinence on quality of life 6 months after childbirth. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 197(6), 636 (2007).

51.

MacArthur

Wilson

Herbison

. Faecal incontinence persisting after childbirth: a 12 year longitudinal study. BJOG 120(2), 169–178; discussion 178–169 (2013).

52.

Johannessen

Wibe

Stordahl

Sandvik

Backe

MØrkved

. Prevalence and predictors of anal incontinence during pregnancy and 1 year after delivery: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 121(3), 269–279 (2014).

53.

van Brummen

Bruinse

van de Pol

Heintz

van der Vaart

. Defecatory symptoms during and after the first pregnancy: prevalences and associated factors. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 17(3), 224–230 (2006).

54.

King

Boyles

Worstell

Zia

Clark

Gregory

. Using the Brink score to predict postpartum anal incontinence. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 203(5), 486 (2010).

55.

Eason

Labrecque

Marcoux

Mondor

. Anal incontinence after childbirth. CMAJ 166(3), 326–330 (2002).

56.

Nelson

Furner

Westercamp

Farquhar

. Cesarean delivery for the prevention of anal incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (2), CD006756 (2010).

57.

Rieger

Schloithe

Saccone

Wattchow

. A prospective study of anal sphincter injury due to childbirth. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 33(9), 950–955 (1998).

58.

Varma

Gunn

Gardiner

Lindow

Duthie

. Obstetric anal sphincter injury: prospective evaluation of incidence. Dis. Colon Rectum 42(12), 1537–1543 (1999).

59.

Oberwalder

Connor

Wexner

. Meta-analysis to determine the incidence of obstetric anal sphincter damage. Br. J. Surg. 90(11), 1333–1337 (2003).

60.

Meschia

Buonaguidi

Pifarotti

Somigliana

Spennacchio

Amicarelli

. Prevalence of anal incontinence in women with symptoms of urinary incontinence and genital prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 100(4), 719–723 (2002).

61.

Bezerra

Vasconcelos Neto

Vasconcelos

. Prevalence of unreported bowel symptoms in women with pelvic floor dysfunction and the impact on their quality of life. Int. Urogynecol. J. 25(7), 927–933 (2014).

62.

Fialkow

Melville

Lentz

Miller

Fenner

. The functional and psychosocial impact of fecal incontinence on women with urinary incontinence. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 189(1), 127–129 (2003).

63.

Kapoor

Thakar

Sultan

. Combined urinary and faecal incontinence. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 16(4), 321–328 (2005).

64.

Ness

. Faecal incontinence: causes, assessment and management. Nurs. Stand. 26(42), 52–54, 56, 58–60 (2012).

65.

Ratto

Litta

Parello

Donisi

Doglietto

. Sacral nerve stimulation is a valid approach in fecal incontinence due to sphincter lesions when compared with sphincter repair. Dis. Colon Rectum 53(3), 264–272 (2010).

66.

Chan

Tjandra

. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: external anal sphincter defect vs. intact anal sphincter. Dis. Colon Rectum 51(7), 1015–1024; discussion 1024–1015 (2008).

67.

Crowell

Schettler

Lacy

. Impact of anal incontinence on psychosocial function and health-related quality of life. Dig. Dis. Sci. 52 (7), 1627–1631 (2007).

68.

Melville

Fan

Newton

Fenner

. Fecal incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 193(6), 2071–2076 (2005).

69.

Heymen

. Psychological and cognitive variables affecting treatment outcomes for urinary and fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126(1 Suppl. 1), S146–S151 (2004).

70.

Markland

Greer

Vogt

. Factors impacting quality of life in women with fecal incontinence. Dis. Colon Rectum 53(8), 1148–1154 (2010).

71.

Imhoff

Brown

Creasman

. Fecal incontinence decreases sexual quality of life, but does not prevent sexual activity in women. Dis. Colon Rectum 55(10), 1059–1065 (2012).

72.

Rogers

Villarreal

Kammerer-Doak

Qualls

. Sexual function in women with and without urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 12(6), 361–365 (2001).

73.

Patel

O'Sullivan

Steinberg

. Symptoms of anal incontinence and impact on sexual function. J. Reprod. Med. 54(8), 493–498 (2009).

74.

Costilla

Foxx-Orenstein

Mayer

Crowell

. Office-based management of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 9(7), 423–433 (2013).

75.

Green

Smoker

Moore

. Urinary incontinence in subacute care–a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and costs. Med. J. Aust. 178 (11), 550–553 (2003).

76.

Drossman

Andruzzi

. U.S. householder survey of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Prevalence, sociodemography, and health impact. Dig. Dis. Sci. 38(9), 1569–1580 (1993).

77.

Miner

. Economic and personal impact of fecal and urinary incontinence. Gastroenterology 126(1 Suppl. 1), S8–S13 (2004).

78.

Menees

Zochowski

Fenner

. Economic cost of fecal incontinence. Dis. Colon Rectum 55(5), 586–598 (2012).

79.

Deutekom

Dobben

Dijkgraaf

Terra

Stoker

Bossuyt

. Costs of outpatients with fecal incontinence. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 40(5), 552–558 (2005).

80.

Mellgren

Jensen

Zetterström

Wong

Hofmeister

Lowry

. Long-term cost of fecal incontinence secondary to obstetric injuries. Dis. Colon Rectum 42(7), 857–865; discussion 865–857 (1999).

81.

Sung

Rogers

Myers

Akbari

Clark

. National trends and costs of surgical treatment for female fecal incontinence. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 197(6), 652 (2007).

82.

Malouf

Chambers

Kamm

. Clinical and economic evaluation of surgical treatments for faecal incontinence. Br. J. Surg. 88(8), 1029–1036 (2001).

83.

Wang

Abbas

. Current management of fecal incontinence. Perm. J. 17(3), 65–73 (2013).

84.

Madoff

Parker

Varma

Lowry

. Faecal incontinence in adults. Lancet 364(9434), 621–632 (2004).

85.

Rodríguez

Blander

Dorey

Raz

Zimmern

. Discrepancy in patient and physician perception of patient's quality of life related to urinary symptoms. Urology 62(1), 49–53 (2003).

86.

Rockwood

Church

Fleshman

. Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index. Dis. Colon Rectum 42(12), 1525–1532 (1999).

87.

Bols

Hendriks

Berghmans

Baeten

de Bie

. Responsiveness and interpretability of incontinence severity scores and FIQL in patients with fecal incontinence: a secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Int. Urogynecol. J. 24(3), 469–478 (2013).

88.

Fisher

Bliss

Savik

. Comparison of recall and daily self-report of fecal incontinence severity. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 35(5), 515–520 (2008).

89.

Alas

Bergman

Dunivan

. Readability of common health-related quality-of-life instruments in female pelvic medicine. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 19(5), 293–297 (2013).

90.

Wiebe

Guyatt

Weaver

Matijevic

Sidwell

. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 56(1), 52–60 (2003).

91.

Abrams

Cardozo

Khoury

Wein

. 5th International Consultation on Incontinence. In: Committee 5B: Patient-Reported Outcome Assessment. European Association of Urology, Paris, France, 389–428 (2013).

92.

Northwood

. Fecal incontinence severity and quality-of-life instruments. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 40(1), 20–23 (2013).

93.

Abrams

Andersson

Birder

. Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol. Urodyn. 29(1), 213–240 (2010).

94.

Cotterill

Norton

Avery

Abrams

Donovan

. Psychometric evaluation of a new patient-completed questionnaire for evaluating anal incontinence symptoms and impact on quality of life: the ICIQ-B. Dis. Colon Rectum 54(10), 1235–1250 (2011).

95.

Kwon

Visco

Fitzgerald

Whitehead

, (PFDN) PFDN. Validity and reliability of the Modifed Manchester Health Questionnaire in assessing patients with fecal incontinence. Dis. Colon Rectum 48(2), 323–331; discussion 331–324 (2005).

96.

Barber

Walters

Bump

. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 193(1), 103–113 (2005).

97.

Barber

Chen

Lukacz

. Further validation of the short form versions of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol. Urodyn. 30(4), 541–546 (2011).

98.

Bartlett

Nowak

. Impact of fecal incontinence on quality of life. World J. Gastroenterol. 15(26), 3276–3282 (2009).

99.

Bordeianou

Rockwood

Baxter

Lowry

Mellgren

Parker

. Does incontinence severity correlate with quality of life? Prospective analysis of 502 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis. 10(3), 273–279 (2008).

100.

Glasgow

Lowry

. Long-term outcomes of anal sphincter repair for fecal incontinence: a systematic review. Dis. Colon Rectum 55(4), 482–490 (2012).

101.

Kudish

Sokol

Kruger

. Trends in major modifiable risk factors for severe perineal trauma, 1996–2006. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 102(2), 165–170 (2008).

102.

Rey

Choung

Schleck

Zinsmeister

Locke

Talley

. Onset and risk factors for fecal incontinence in a US community. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 105(2), 412–419 (2010).

103.

Hansen

Bliss

Peden-McAlpine

. Diet strategies used by women to manage fecal incontinence. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 33(1), 52–61; discussion 61–52 (2006).

104.

Peden-McAlpine

Bliss

Hill

. The experience of community-living women managing fecal incontinence. West J. Nurs. Res. 30(7), 817–835 (2008).

105.

Bliss

Lewis

Hasselman

Savik

Lowry

Whitebird

. Use and evaluation of disposable absorbent products for managing fecal incontinence by community-living people. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 38(3), 289–297 (2011).

106.

Ohge

Furne

Springfield

Ringwala

Levitt

. Effectiveness of devices purported to reduce flatus odor. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 100(2), 397–400 (2005).

107.

Paterson

Dunn

Kowanko

van Loon

Stein

Pretty

. Selection of continence products: perspectives of people who have incontinence and their carers. Disabil. Rehabil. 25(17), 955–963 (2003).

108.

Fader

Cottenden

Getliffe

. Absorbent products for moderate-heavy urinary and/or faecal incontinence in women and men. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4, CD007408 (2008).

109.

Gray

Bliss

Doughty

Ermer-Seltun

Kennedy-Evans

Palmer

. Incontinence-associated dermatitis: a consensus. J. Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 34(1), 45–54; quiz 55–46 (2007).

110.

Gray

. Incontinence-related skin damage: essential knowledge. Ostomy Wound Manage. 53(12), 28–32 (2007).

111.

Bond

Youngson

MacPherson

. Anal plugs for the management of fecal incontinence in children and adults: a randomized control trial. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 41(1), 45–53 (2007).

112.

Deutekom

Dobben

. Plugs for containing faecal incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4, CD005086 (2012).

113.

Byrne

Solomon

Young

Rex

Merlino

. Biofeedback for fecal incontinence: short-term outcomes of 513 consecutive patients and predictors of successful treatment. Dis. Colon Rectum 50(4), 417–427 (2007).

114.

Norton

Thomas

Hill

Group

. Management of faecal incontinence in adults: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 334(7608), 1370–1371 (2007).

115.

Norton

Cody

. Biofeedback and/or sphincter exercises for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7, CD002111 (2012).

116.

Bols

Berghmans

de Bie

. Rectal balloon training as add-on therapy to pelvic floor muscle training in adults with fecal incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. Neurourol. Urodyn. 31(1), 132–138 (2012).

117.

Jodorkovsky

Dunbar

Gearhart

Stein

Clarke

. Biofeedback therapy for defecatory dysfunction: “real life” experience. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 47(3), 252–255 (2013).

118.

Omar

Alexander

. Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 6, CD002116 (2013).

119.

Cheetham

Brazzelli

Norton

Glazener

. Drug treatment for faecal incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 3, CD002116 (2013).

120.

Moscovitz

Rotholtz

Baig

. Overlapping sphincteroplasty: does preservation of the scar influence immediate outcome? Colorectal Dis. 4(4), 275–279 (2002).

121.

Zutshi

Tracey

Bast

Halverson

. Ten-year outcome after anal sphincter repair for fecal incontinence. Dis. Colon Rectum. 52(6), 1089–1094 (2009).

122.

Riss

Stift

Teleky

. Long-term anorectal and sexual function after overlapping anterior anal sphincter repair: a case-match study. Dis. Colon Rectum. 52(6), 1095–1100 (2009).

123.

Matzel

. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: its role in the treatment algorithm. Colorectal Dis. 13(Suppl. 2), 10–14 (2011).

124.

Hong

da Silva

Wexner

. What is the best option for failed sphincter repair? Colorectal Dis. 16(4), 298–303 (2014).

125.

Wexner

Coller

Devroede

. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: results of a 120-patient prospective multicenter study. Ann. Surg. 251(3), 441–449 (2010).

126.

Bharucha

Rao

. An update on anorectal disorders for gastroenterologists. Gastroenterology 146(1), 37–45. e32 (2014).

127.

Hull

Giese

Wexner

. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis. Colon Rectum 56(2), 234–245 (2013).

128.

Matzel

Kamm

Stösser

. Sacral spinal nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: multicentre study. Lancet 363(9417), 1270–1276 (2004).

129.

Tan

Ngo

Darzi

Shenouda

Tekkis

. Meta-analysis: sacral nerve stimulation versus conservative therapy in the treatment of faecal incontinence. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 26(3), 275–294 (2011).

130.

Mellgren

Wexner

Coller

. Long-term efficacy and safety of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis. Colon Rectum 54(9), 1065–1075 (2011).

131.

Devroede

Giese

Wexner

. Quality of life is markedly improved in patients with fecal incontinence after sacral nerve stimulation. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 18(2), 103–112 (2012).

132.

Damon

Barth

Roman

Mion

. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence improves symptoms, quality of life and patients' satisfaction: results of a monocentric series of 119 patients. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 28(2), 227–233 (2013).

133.

Duelund-Jakobsen

Dudding

Bradshaw

. Randomized double-blind crossover study of alternative stimulator settings in sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br. J. Surg. 99(10), 1445–1452 (2012).

134.

Duelund-Jakobsen

Buntzen

Lundby

Laurberg

. Sacral nerve stimulation at subsensory threshold does not compromise treatment efficacy: results from a randomized, blinded crossover study. Ann. Surg. 257(2), 219–223 (2013).

135.

Horrocks

Thin

Thaha

Taylor

Norton

Knowles

. Systematic review of tibial nerve stimulation to treat faecal incontinence. Br. J. Surg. 101(5), 457–468 (2014).

136.

Thin

Horrocks

Hotouras

. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of neuromodulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence. Br. J. Surg. 100(11), 1430–1447 (2013).

137.

Hotouras

Murphy

Allison

. Prospective clinical audit of two neuromodulatory treatments for fecal incontinence: sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). Surg. Today 44, 2124–2130 (2014).

138.

Findlay

Yeung

Robinson

Greaves

Maxwell-Armstrong

. Peripheral neuromodulation via posterior tibial nerve stimulation - a potential treatment for faecal incontinence? Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 92(5), 385–390 (2010).

139.

Findlay

Maxwell-Armstrong

. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation and faecal incontinence: a review. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 26(3), 265–273 (2011).

140.

Eléouet

Siproudhis

Guillou

Le Couedic

Bouguen

Bretagne

. Chronic posterior tibial nerve transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to treat fecal incontinence (FI). Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 25(9), 1127–1132 (2010).

141.

Graf

Mellgren

Matzel

. Efficacy of dextranomer in stabilised hyaluronic acid for treatment of faecal incontinence: a randomised, sham-controlled trial. Lancet. 377(9770), 997–1003 (2011).

142.

Maeda

Laurberg

Norton

. Perianal injectable bulking agents as treatment for faecal incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2, CD007959 (2013).

143.

Takahashi-Monroy

Morales

Garcia-Osogobio

. SECCA procedure for the treatment of fecal incontinence: results of five-year follow-up. Dis. Colon Rectum 51(3), 355–359 (2008).

144.

Parisien

Corman

. The Secca procedure for the treatment of fecal incontinence: definitive therapy or short-term solution. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 18(1), 42–45 (2005).

145.

Ruiz

Pinto

Hull

Efron

Wexner

. Does the radiofrequency procedure for fecal incontinence improve quality of life and incontinence at 1-year follow-up? Dis. Colon Rectum 53(7), 1041–1046 (2010).

146.

Colquhoun

Kaiser

Efron

. Is the quality of life better in patients with colostomy than patients with fecal incontience? World J. Surg. 30(10), 1925–1928 (2006).

147.

Norton

Burch

Kamm

. Patients' views of a colostomy for fecal incontinence. Dis. Colon Rectum 48(5), 1062–1069 (2005).

Impact of Fecal Incontinence and Its Treatment on Quality of Life in Women

Abstract

Keywords

Seeking care

Special populations

Frail older women

Pregnancy/childbirth

Double incontinence

Impact of FI

Living with FI

Psychological impact

Factors impacting QOL

Impact on female sexual function

Economic impact

Continence mechanism

Evaluation – how to measure the impact of FI

Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes

Continence diary

Validated questionnaires

Impact of treatment on QOL

Prevention

Conservative management

Continence products & QOL

Anal plug & QOL

Behavioral therapy/biofeedback

Surgical management

Sphincter repair & QOL

Sacral nerve stimulation & QOL

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation & QOL

Perianal injectables, ‘bulking agents’ & QOL

Secca® procedure & QOL

Diversion – colostomy & QOL

Conclusion & future perspective

Financial & competing interests disclosure

References