Prospective Database of Factors Associated With Faecal vs. Double Incontinence in Patients Referred for High Resolution Anorectal Manometry.
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: Questionnaires.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Double Incontinence, Faecal Incontinence, Urinary Incontinence. Basic parameters: from 18 years · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- Belgium
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Overview
This study aims to verify the results from our previous retrospective cohort analysis by establishing a database of well-characterised patients prospectively. The different prevalence of neurological disorders, abdominal, urological and obstetrical surgery, diarrhoea and other potential associated factors as well as the importance of abnormalities identified by 3D high resolution anorectal manometry (HARM) will be compared between subjects with feacal incontinence (FI), double incontinence (DI) and controls. Presence and severity of both FI and urinary incontinence (UI) will be evaluated by disease specific questionnaires. Measuring both disease severity and Quality of Life (QoL) is needed to determine the true impact of incontinence. Finally, the impact on quality of life will be compared between both groups.
Detailed description
Double incontinence (DI) is the concomitant incontinence for urine and stool. A 3 - 5 % prevalence among adults has been reported, while 7 - 18 % of community-dwelling adults suffer from faecal incontinence (FI), irrespective of gender. Risk factors for FI include structural anomalies of the anorectal region, disturbed rectal compliance, disturbed anorectal sensation and presence of diarrhoea. Age, body mass index (BMI), obstetrical history (especially parity), anal penetrative intercourse and chronic illness have also been implicated. In contrast, little is known about the pathophysiology of DI. Factors like older age, multiparity, neurological disease and medical comorbidities have been proposed based on analysis from the Nurse's health study. According to our recent retrospective cohort analysis (accepted for publication Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica), diarrhoea, neurological disease and previous urological interventions characterise patients suffering from DI. Males most frequently suffer from an underlying neurologic disorder, while anatomical anomalies and urological surgery was more frequently observed in women. There was a trend toward more frequent diarrhoea in both genders. Anorectal manometry parameters could not differentiate between FI alone or DI. However, this result could have been hampered by the use of conventional manometry in contrast to high-resolution 3D manometry.
This study aims to verify the results from our previous retrospective cohort analysis by establishing a database of well-characterised patients prospectively. The different prevalence of neurological disorders, abdominal, urological and obstetrical surgery, diarrhoea and other potential associated factors as well as the importance of abnormalities identified by 3D high resolution anorectal manometry (HARM) will be compared between subjects with FI, DI and controls. Presence and severity of both FI and UI will be evaluated by disease specific questionnaires.
Interventions
- Other Questionnaires
Disease specific questionnaires
Primary outcome measures
- compose a database of patients suffering from faecal or double incontinence [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
Secondary outcome measures (12)
- Confirm the role of diarrhea as a major determinant of double incontinence vs faecal incontinence [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Confirm the role of diarrhea as a major determinant of double incontinence vs faecal incontinence [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Confirm the role of diarrhea as a major determinant of double incontinence vs faecal incontinence [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Confirm the role of diarrhea as a major determinant of double incontinence vs faecal incontinence [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Confirm the role of diarrhea as a major determinant of double incontinence vs faecal incontinence [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Identify other factors associated with DI vs. FI , [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Identify other factors associated with DI vs. FI , [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Identify other factors associated with DI vs. FI , [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Identify other factors associated with DI vs. FI , [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Identify other factors associated with DI vs. FI , [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Compare manometric data from HARM in DI vs. FI alone; [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
- Assess the prevalence of DI in women and men with FI presenting for HARM; [Time frame: during inclusion visit]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- Age > 18 years;
- Self-reported faecal incontinence.
Exclusion criteria
- Impossibility to perform the anorectal manometry because of pain, stenosis or organic disease;
- Active (peri)rectal inflammation, including abscess;
- Pregnancy;
- Inability to cooperate during the anorectal manometry
- Impossibility to perform HARM due to pain, stenosis or organic disease;
- Inability to complete the questionnaires
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: Yes
Study design
- Observational model
- Case-control
Study locations
Belgium · 1 center
- UZ Brussel — Brussels
Identifiers
NCT: NCT05550675 · ProDIM