Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anal inspection and digital rectal examination compared to anorectal physiology tests and endoanal ultrasonography in evaluating fecal incontinence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Anal inspection and digital rectal examination are routinely performed in fecal incontinent patients but it is not clear to what extent they contribute to the diagnostic work-up. We examined if and how findings of anal inspection and rectal examination are associated with anorectal function tests and endoanal ultrasonography.

Methods

A cohort of fecal incontinent patients (n=312, 90% females; mean age 59) prospectively underwent anal inspection and rectal examination. Findings were compared with results of anorectal function tests and endoanal ultrasonography.

Results

Absent, decreased and normal resting and squeeze pressures at rectal examination correlated to some extent with mean (±SD) manometric findings: mean resting pressure 41.3 (±20), 43.8 (±20) and 61.6 (±23) Hg (p<0.001); incremental squeeze pressure 20.6 (±20), 38.4 (±31) and 62.4 (±34) Hg (p<0.001). External anal sphincter defects at rectal examination were confirmed with endoanal ultrasonography for defects <90 degrees in 36% (37/103); for defects between 90-150 degrees in 61% (20/33); for defects between 150-270 degrees in 100% (6/6). Patients with anal scar tissue at anal inspection had lower incremental squeeze pressures (p=0.04); patients with a gaping anus had lower resting pressures (p=0.013) at anorectal manometry. All other findings were not related to any anorectal function test or endoanal ultrasonography.

Conclusions

Anal inspection and digital rectal examination can give accurate information about internal and external anal sphincter function but are inaccurate for determining external anal sphincter defects <90 degrees. Therefore, a sufficient diagnostic work-up should comprise at least rectal examination, anal inspection and endoanal ultrasonography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Osterberg A, Edebol Eeg-Olofsson K, Graf W (2000) Results of surgical treatment for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 87:1546–1552

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bharucha AE, Fletcher JG, Harper CM, Hough D, Daube JR, Stevens C, Seide B et al (2005) Relationship between symptoms and disordered continence mechanisms in women with idiopathic faecal incontinence. Gut 54:546–555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Madoff RD, Parker SC, Varma MG, Lowry AC (2004) Faecal incontinence in adults. Lancet 364:621–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mavrantonis C, Wexner SD (1998) A clinical approach to fecal incontinence (review; 127 refs). J Clin Gastroenterol 27:108–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Prather CM (2004) Physiologic variables that predict the outcome of treatment for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126:S135–S140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chiarioni G, Scattolini C, Bonfante F, Vantini I (1993) Liquid stool incontinence with severe urgency: anorectal function and effective biofeedback treatment. Gut 34:1576–1580

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. MacMillan A (2004) Prevalence of fecal incontinence in community-dwelling adults: a systematic review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1341–1349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rudolph W, Galandiuk S (2002) A practical guide to the diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. Mayo Clin Proc 77:271–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kouraklis G, Andromanakos N (2004) Evaluating patients with anorectal incontinence. Surg Today 34:304–312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bharucha AE (2003) Fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 124:1672–1685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bharucha AE (2004) Outcome measures for fecal incontinence: anorectal structure and function. Gastroenterology 126:S90–S98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Soffer EE, Hull T (2000) Fecal incontinence: a practical approach to evaluation and treatment. Am J Gastroenterol 95:1873–1880

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, Whitehead WE (1999) AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 116:735–760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rao SS, Patel RS (1997) How useful are manometric tests of anorectal function in the management of defecation disorders? Am J Gastroenterol 92:469–475

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Liberman H, Faria J, Ternent CA, Blatchford GJ, Christensen MA, Thorson AG (2001) A prospective evaluation of the value of anorectal physiology in the management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1567–1574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Salvioli B, Bharucha AE, Rath-Harvey D, Pemberton JH, Phillips SF (2001) Rectal compliance, capacity, and rectoanal sensation in fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol 96:2158–2168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dobben AC, Terra MP, Deutekom M, Bossuyt PM, Felt-Bersma RJ, Stoker J (2005) Diagnostic work up of faecal incontinence in daily clinical practice in the Netherlands. Neth J Med 63:265–269

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nielsen MB, Hauge C, Rasmussen OO, Pedersen JF, Christiansen J (1992) Anal endosonographic findings in the follow-up of primarily sutured sphincteric ruptures. Br J Surg 79:104–106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Talbot IC, Nicholls RJ, Bartram CI (1994) Anal endosonography for identifying external sphincter defects confirmed histologically. Br J Surg 81:463–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Romano G, Rotondano G, Esposito P, Pellecchia L, Novi A (1996) External anal sphincter defects: correlation between pre- operative anal endosonography and intraoperative findings. Br J Radiol 69:6–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Keating JP, Stewart PJ, Eyers AA, Warner D, Bokey EL (1997) Are special investigations of value in the management of patients with fecal incontinence? Dis Colon Rectum 40:896–901

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hallan RI, Marzouk DEMM, Waldron DJ, Womack NR, Williams NS (1989) Comparison of digital and manometric assessment of anal sphincter function. Br J Surg 76:973–975

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Eckardt VF, Kanzler G (1993) How reliable is digital examination for the evaluation of anal sphincter tone? Int J Colorectal Dis 8:95–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hill J, Corson RJ, Brandon H, Redford J, Faragher EB, Kiff ES (1994) History and examination in the assessment of patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 37:473–477

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wexner SD, Jorge JM (1994) Colorectal physiological tests: use or abuse of technology? Eur J Surg 160:167–174

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Buch E, Alos R, Solana A, Roig JV, Fernandez C, Diaz F (1998) Can digital examination substitute anorectal manometry for the evaluation of anal canal pressures? Rev Esp Enferm Dig 90:90–93

    Google Scholar 

  28. Felt-Bersma RJ, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SG (1988) Investigation of anorectal function. Br J Surg 75:53–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fink RL, Roberts LJ, Scott M (1992) The role of manometry, electromyography and radiology in the assessment of faecal incontinence. Aust N Z J Surg 62:951–958

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Cook TA, Mortensen NJM (1998) Management of faecal incontinence following obstetric injury. Br J Surg 85:293–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Herbst F, Teleky B (1994) Alteration of maximum anal resting pressure by digital rectal examination prior to manometry: analysis of agreement between repeat measurements. Int J Colorectal Dis 9:207–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaushal JN, Goldner F (1991) Validation of the digital rectal examination as an estimate of anal sphincter squeeze pressure. Am J Gastroenterol 86:886–887

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Terra MP, Dobben AC, Berghmans B, Deutekom M, Baeten CG, Janssen LW, Boeckxstaens GE et al (2006) Electrical stimulation and pelvic floor muscle training with biofeedback in patients with fecal incontinence: a cohort study of 281 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1149–1159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bartram CI, DeLancy JOL (eds) (2003) Imaging pelvic floor disorders. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Altman DG (1999) Practical statistics for medical research. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida

    Google Scholar 

  37. Felt-Bersma RJ, Poen AC, Cuesta MA, Meuwissen SG (1997) Anal sensitivity test: what does it measure and do we need it? Cause or derivative of anorectal complaints. Dis Colon Rectum 40:811–816

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rao SS (1997) Manometric evaluation of defecation disorders: part II. Fecal incontinence. Gastroenterologist 5:99–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Azpiroz F, Enck P, Whitehead WE (2002) Anorectal functional testing: review of collective experience. Am J Gastroenterol 97:232–240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Felt-Bersma RJF, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SGM (1990) Anorectal function investigations in incontinent and continent patients—differences and discriminatory value. Dis Colon Rectum 33:479–486

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Felt-Bersma RJ, van Baren R, Koorevaar M, Strijers RL, Cuesta MA (1995) Unsuspected sphincter defects shown by anal endosonography after anorectal surgery. A prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 38:249–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Financial support was granted by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development ZON MW. Grant 945-01-013, 2001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Annette C. Dobben, Maaike P. Terra & Jaap Stoker

  2. Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marije Deutekom & Patrick M. M. Bossuyt

  3. Department of Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Oosterpark 9, 1091 AC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Michael F. Gerhards

  4. Department of Surgery, Medical Centre Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, The Netherlands

    A. Bart Bijnen

  5. Department of Gastroenterology, Free University Medical Centre, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Richelle J. F. Felt-Bersma

  6. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Lucas W. M. Janssen

Authors
  1. Annette C. Dobben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maaike P. Terra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marije Deutekom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael F. Gerhards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Bart Bijnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richelle J. F. Felt-Bersma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lucas W. M. Janssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jaap Stoker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annette C. Dobben.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dobben, A.C., Terra, M.P., Deutekom, M. et al. Anal inspection and digital rectal examination compared to anorectal physiology tests and endoanal ultrasonography in evaluating fecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis 22, 783–790 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-006-0217-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-006-0217-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation