REAL CLINICAL PRACTICE OF POSTPARTUM ANAL INCONTINENCE TREATMENT IN RUSSI

Aim: To evaluate the medical care quality provided to patients with fecal incontinence in practice; to investigate the patient care effectiveness; to identify the problems the patient and the doctor are faced during the postpartum anal incontinence (AI) treatment.

Methods: A questionnaire for surgeons was created using Google forms. It includes 22 questions about medical characteristics of patients with AI, used diagnostic methods, and treatment results. The answers were analyzed and presented as histograms.

Results: Totally 134 (17.4%) questionnaires were completed from September to November 2020. Labor was the most common AI cause (74.4%). The median age was 20-40 years, 37% of patients was >40 years, 8% – >60 years. The most common complaints were incontinence (70%) and decreased life quality (72%). Rectovaginal fistulas were diagnosed in 28% of cases. The sphincter complex lesion size, age and anorectal manometry results determined the treatment strategy. Only 8.8% of surgeons suggested sacral neurostimulation in case of the other methods inefficiency. Up to 16.7% of patients were offered to create stoma as the final treatment method.

Discussion: Our study is the first major survey for proctologists and surgeons in Russia, assessing the medical care of patients with postpartum AI. The results indicate insufficient attention to this problem; it requires educational and organizational solutions. Regional or federal centers where obstetrician and surgeons can work cooperatively could be extremely helpful to provide appropriate medical care to these patients and to improve the treatment quality for women with postpartum AI.

1. F. D. Turel, S. Langer, K. L. Shek, and H. P. Dietz, “Medium-to long-term follow-up of obstetric anal sphincter injury,” Dis. Colon Rectum, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 348–356, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000001297.

2. S. S. Webb, D. Yates, M. Manresa, M. Parsons, C. Mac-Arthur, and K. M. K. Ismail, “Impact of subsequent birth and delivery mode for women with previous OASIS: systematic review and meta-analysis,” Int. Urogynecol. J., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 507–514, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3226-y.

3. M. A. Harvey et al., “Obstetrical Anal Sphincter Injuries (OASIS): Prevention, Recognition, and Repair,” J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Canada, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 1131–1148, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30081-0.

4. A. Lacross, M. Groff, and A. Smaldone, “Obstetric anal sphincter injury and anal incontinence following vaginal birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” J. Midwifery Women’s Heal., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 37–47, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12283.

5. H. W. Brown, K. Y. Dyer, and R. G. Rogers, “Management of Fecal Incontinence,” Obstet. Gynecol., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004054.

6. V. L. Handa, J. L. Blomquist, K. C. McDermott, S. Friedman, and A. Muñoz, “Pelvic floor disorders after vaginal birth: Effect of episiotomy, perineal laceration, and operative birth,” Obstet. Gynecol., 2012, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318240df4f.

7. H. Jiang, X. Qian, G. Carroli, and P. Garner, “Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub3.

8. K. Hartmann, M. Viswanathan, R. Palmieri, G. Gartlehner, J. Thorp, and K. N. Lohr, “Outcomes of routine episiotomy: A systematic review,” Journal of the American Medical Association. 2005, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.17.2141.

9. “Clinical guidelines for coloproctology 2017 edited by corresponding member of the RAS Yu. A. Shelygina, 2nd edition, revised and supplemented.” in Russ.

10. A. L. Petrushin and A. V. Pryalukhina, “Postpartum anal incontinence,” Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 50–62, 2019, https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347.2019.13.1.050-062.

11. R. S. McLeod, “Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale:Quality of Life Instrument for Patients with Fecal Incontinence,” Dis. Colon Rectum, 2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02237237.

12. T. H. Rockwood et al., “Fecal incontinence quality of life scale,” Dis. Colon Rectum, 2000, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02237236.

13. G. R., A. D.F., M. J. H., O. L., G. J.E., and W. S.D., “Pudendal neuropathy is predictive of failure following anterior overlapping sphincteroplasty,” Dis. Colon Rectum, 1998.

14. G. Zufferey, T. Perneger, J. Robert-Yap, R. Rubay, B. Lkhagvabayar, and B. Roche, “Measure of the voluntary contraction of the puborectal sling as a predictor of successful sphincter repair in the treatment of anal incontinence,” Dis. Colon Rectum, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e31819d46a6.

15. L. Oliveira, J. Pfeifer, and S. D. Wexner, “Physiological and clinical outcome of anterior sphincteroplasty,” Br. J. Surg., 1996, https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800830421.

16. C. Simmang, E. H. Birnbaum, I. J. Kodner, R. D. Fry, and J. W. Fleshman, “Anal sphincter reconstruction in the elderly: Does advancing age affect outcome?,” Dis. Colon Rectum, 1994, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02049804.

17. K. Kuismanen, K. Nieminen, K. Karjalainen, K. Lehto, and J. Uotila, “Outcomes of primary anal sphincter repair after obstetric injury and evaluation of a novel three-choice assessment,” Tech. Coloproctol., 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1770-9.

18. “Practice Bulletin No. 165: Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery,” Obstet. Gynecol., 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001523.

19. V. Patton, S. Kumar, K. Parkin, E. Karantanis, and P. Dinning, “The relationship between residual sphincter damage after primary repair, faecal incontinence, and anal sphincter function in primiparous women with an obstetric anal sphincter injury,” Neurourol. Urodyn., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 193–199, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23826.