metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Results of national survey of specialists on the clinical evaluation of faecal i...
Journal Information
Vol. 86. Issue 3.
Pages 154-158 (September 2009)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 86. Issue 3.
Pages 154-158 (September 2009)
Full text access
Results of national survey of specialists on the clinical evaluation of faecal incontinence
Resultados de una encuesta nacional dirigida a especialistas sobre la evaluación clínica de pacientes con incontinencia fecal
Visits
1411
David Parésa,
Corresponding author
Dpares@imas.imim.es

Corresponding author.
, Miguel Peraa, Anna Cartanyàa, Silvia Delgado-Arosb, Mario de Miguelc, Héctor Ortizc, Luis Grandea
a Unidad de Cirugía Colorrectal, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
b Servicio de Gastroenterología, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain
c Unidad de Cirugía Colorrectal, Hospital Virgen del Camino, Pamplona, Navarra, Spain
This item has received
Article information
Abstract
Introduction

Faecal incontinence is a high prevalence disease in the general population. The aims of this study were to analyse which severity grading systems of faecal incontinence are used in Spain and to find out if there are differences in their use among specialists who manage these patients.

Material and methods

A postal questionnaire survey was sent to all hospitals of the National Health Service in Spain in order to study the attitudes and opinions of general surgery and gastroenterology specialists regarding the clinical evaluation of patients with faecal incontinence.

Results

Ninety-nine questionnaires were returned fully completed (65 surgeons and 34 gastroenterologists). Only 41.8% of responders used a diary card systematically (46.8% surgeons vs 32.3% gastroenterologists; P=.05). The Wexner score is the most widely grading system used in clinical practice (85.8% surgeons vs 50% gastroenterologists; P=.01). The most relevant issues in the evaluation of these patients were considered: Type of faecal incontinence, frequency of leakage, and quality of life. Finally, 85.5% of those questioned said that the universal acceptance of severity grading systems by all specialists would be an improvement, and 98.9% considered it useful to start a national plan of information regarding clinical evaluation of faecal incontinence in Spain.

Conclusions

There is variability in how faecal incontinence is evaluated among specialists in Spain.

Keywords:
Faecal incontinence
Diagnosis
Scores
Survey
Specialists
Resumen
Introducción

La incontinencia fecal es un trastorno de elevada prevalencia en la población general. El objetivo del estudio fue conocer qué sistemas de evaluación de gravedad de incontinencia fecal se utilizan en España, y conocer si hay diferencias en su utilización entre los especialistas que atienden a estos pacientes.

Material y métodos

Se envió una encuesta a todos los hospitales de la red pública de salud del Estado español para conocer la actitud y la opinión de los especialistas en cirugía general y digestiva y en gastroenterología respecto a la evaluación clínica de los pacientes con incontinencia fecal.

Resultados

Obtuvimos 99 encuestas cumplimentadas (65 de especialistas en cirugía general y digestiva y 34 de gastroenterología). Sólo el 41,8% utiliza sistemáticamente un diario defecatorio para la evaluación de estos pacientes (el 46,8% en cirugía frente al 32,3% en gastroenterología; p=0,05). El sistema de puntuación de Wexner es el más empleado en la actividad clínica (el 85,9% en cirugía frente al 50% en gastroenterología; p=0,001). Los aspectos considerados más relevantes al evaluar a estos pacientes fueron: tipo de incontinencia fecal, frecuencia de los escapes y calidad de vida. El 85,5% de los sujetos encuestados consideran que lo que debería mejorar es que los sistemas de evaluación fueran universalmente aceptados por todos los especialistas y el 98,9%, que sería de gran utilidad realizar un plan de información para el uso homogéneo de sistemas de evaluación de pacientes con incontinencia fecal en España.

Conclusiones

Hay variabilidad en España en la evaluación de la incontinencia fecal por los distintos especialistas.

Palabras clave:
Incontinencia fecal
Diagnóstico
Sistemas de puntuación
Encuesta
Especialistas
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1.]
C. del Rio, S. Biondo, J. Marti-Rague.
[Fecal incontinence. Patient assessment and classical treatments].
Cir Esp, 78 (2005), pp. 34-40
[2.]
T.H. Rockwood, J.M. Church, J.W. Fleshman, R.L. Kane, C. Mavrantonis, A.G. Thorson, et al.
Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence.
Dis Colon Rectum, 43 (2000), pp. 9-16
[3.]
S. Perry, C. Shaw, C. McGrother, R.J. Matthews, R.P. Assassa, H. Dallosso, et al.
Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community.
Gut, 50 (2002), pp. 480-484
[4.]
W.E. Whitehead.
Fecal incontinence: a neglected area of gastroenterology.
Gastroenterology, 122 (2002), pp. 5
[5.]
N.N. Baxter, D.A. Rothenberger, A.C. Lowry.
Measuring fecal incontinence.
Dis Colon Rectum, 46 (2003), pp. 1591-1605
[6.]
A.G. Parks.
Royal Society of Medicine. Section of Proctology; Meeting 27 November 1974. President's Address. Anorectal incontinence.
Proc R Soc Med, 68 (1975), pp. 681-690
[7.]
M. Pescatori, G. Anastasio, C. Bottini, A. Mentasti.
New grading and scoring for anal incontinence. Evaluation of 335 patients.
Dis Colon Rectum, 35 (1992), pp. 482-487
[8.]
J.M. Jorge, S.D. Wexner.
Etiology and management of fecal incontinence.
Dis Colon Rectum, 36 (1993), pp. 77-97
[9.]
C.J. Vaizey, E. Carapeti, J.A. Cahill, M.A. Kamm.
Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems.
Gut, 44 (1999), pp. 77-80
[10.]
C. Baeten, D.C. Bartolo, P.A. Lehur, K. Matzel, M. Pescatori, B. Roche, et al.
Consensus conference on faecal incontinence.
Tech Coloproctol, 11 (2007), pp. 225-233
[11.]
D. Pares, C. Norton, S. Chelvanayagam.
Fecal incontinence: the quality of reported randomized, controlled trials in the last ten years.
Dis Colon Rectum, 51 (2008), pp. 88-95
[12.]
R.D. Madoff, S.C. Parker, M.G. Varma, A.C. Lowry.
Faecal incontinence in adults.
[13.]
J.V. Roig, A. Garcia-Fadrique, J. Garcia Armengol, F.L. Villalba, M. Bruna, C. Sancho, et al.
[Use of nasogastric tubes and drains after colorectal surgery. Have attitudes changed in the last 10 years?].
Cir Esp, 83 (2008), pp. 78-84
[14.]
C.S. Seow, N.B. Teo, C.R. Wilson, K.A. Oien.
Attitudes and training of research fellows in surgery: national questionnaire survey.
BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 725-726
[15.]
I. Grossmann, G.H. de Bock, C.J. van de Velde, J. Kievit, T. Wiggers.
Results of a national survey among Dutch surgeons treating patients with colorectal carcinoma. Current opinion about follow-up, treatment of metastasis, and reasons to revise follow-up practice.
Colorectal Dis, 9 (2007), pp. 787-792
[16.]
A.K. Macmillan, A.E. Merrie, R.J. Marshall, B.R. Parry.
Design and validation of a comprehensive fecal incontinence questionnaire.
Dis Colon Rectum, 51 (2008), pp. 1502-1522
[17.]
Y. Maeda, D. Pares, C. Norton, C.J. Vaizey, M.A. Kamm.
Does the St. Mark's incontinence score reflect patients’ perceptions? A review of 390 patients.
Dis Colon Rectum, 51 (2008), pp. 436-442

Data from this study were presented in the 12th General Meeting of the Spanish Society of Coloproctology in Valencia (May 2008), the General Meeting of the European Society of Coloproctology in Nantes (September 2008), and the 27th Congress of the Spanish Association of Surgeons in Madrid (November 2008).

Copyright © 2009. Asociación Española de Cirujanos
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos