Crawshaw A P, Pigott L, Potter M A, Bartolo D C C
Department of Coloproctology, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, UK.
Colorectal Dis. 2004 May;6(3):185-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00584.x.
The aim of this study was, firstly, to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of rectal irrigation in the treatment of patients with disorders of faecal continence that have not responded to other treatment modalities. Secondly, to see if standard anorectal physiology measures can identify patients who might have successful treatment with rectal irrigation.
All patients who had been treated with rectal irrigation, between 1998 and 2000, were sent a postal questionnaire. Patients were asked to quantify their symptoms (before and after rectal irrigation) using a visual analogue scale to determine the efficacy of rectal irrigation. An increase of 10 (10 mm) in this score was regarded as successful treatment and incontinence scores obtained. The acceptability of rectal irrigation was determined using a Quality of Life questionnaire. Data regarding presenting symptoms, previous therapies, pretreatment anorectal physiology measurements were obtained from a retrospective case note and database review.
Completed questionnaires were obtained from 48 (52%) of 92 patients, 39 patients had had previous medical and/or surgical treatment before trying rectal irrigation. At the time of the questionnaire 44 of 48 patients were still using rectal irrigation. Using the linear analogue scores 24 of 48 (50%) reported an improvement in their symptoms using rectal irrigation. Most patients found the treatment acceptable. Incontinence scores and anorectal physiology measures did not predict those patients who responded successfully to rectal irrigation.
Rectal irrigation can offer symptomatic improvement to patients with faecal evacuatory disorders where other therapies have failed. Most patients find the treatment acceptable. Standard anorectal physiology measures and incontinence scores do not predict those patients likely to have successful treatment.
本研究的目的,首先是评估直肠灌洗在治疗对其他治疗方式无反应的大便失禁患者中的疗效和可接受性。其次,观察标准的肛肠生理学测量方法能否识别出可能通过直肠灌洗获得成功治疗的患者。
向1998年至2000年间接受过直肠灌洗治疗的所有患者发送了邮政问卷。要求患者使用视觉模拟量表对其症状(直肠灌洗前后)进行量化,以确定直肠灌洗的疗效。该评分增加10分(10毫米)被视为治疗成功,并获得失禁评分。使用生活质量问卷确定直肠灌洗的可接受性。从回顾性病例记录和数据库回顾中获取有关当前症状、既往治疗、治疗前肛肠生理学测量的数据。
92例患者中有48例(52%)完成了问卷,39例患者在尝试直肠灌洗之前曾接受过药物和/或手术治疗。在进行问卷调查时,48例患者中有44例仍在使用直肠灌洗。使用线性模拟评分,48例患者中有24例(50%)报告直肠灌洗后症状有所改善。大多数患者认为该治疗是可接受的。失禁评分和肛肠生理学测量未能预测哪些患者对直肠灌洗有成功反应。
对于其他治疗方法无效的大便排空障碍患者,直肠灌洗可改善症状。大多数患者认为该治疗是可接受的。标准的肛肠生理学测量和失禁评分无法预测哪些患者可能获得成功治疗。