Pelvic floor physiology in women with faecal incontinence and urinary symptoms

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Anorectal manometry, balloon proctometrography, measurement of anorectal angles and videourodynamics were used to investigate 45 asymptomatic women and 13 with faecal incontinence and urinary symptoms, nine of whom also had stress urinary incontinence. The anorectal angle was measured and videourodynamics performed on 17 constipated women with urinary symptoms. Mean (s.e.m.) values obtained with anorectal manometry were lower in women with faecal incontinence and urinary symptoms than in controls (maximum resting pressure 42·5(8·1) versus 82·5(9·3) cmH2O, P = 0·001; maximum attained pressure 80·5(13·7) versus 216·2(11·2) cmH2O, P = 0·001; maximum squeeze increment 35·3(7·5) versus 141·6(100) cmH2O, P = 0·001), indicating a weakened puborectalis and external anal sphincter. Mean(s.e.m.) anorectal angles at rest, squeeze and strain were all significantly greater in the doubly incontinent women than in those with constipation (114(3·8) versus 93(5·9)°, P = 0·01; 103(2·5) versus 78(3·5)°, P < 0·001; 120(2·9) versus 104(4·2)°, P = 0·01). Urinary incontinence was worse in the doubly incontinent than in the constipated women (eight of nine versus one of eight with grade 2a or higher, P = 0·002). These results suggest that doubly incontinent women have a significantly weakened pelvic floor and that this should be taken into account before any planned surgery for urinary incontinence.

This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit: