Rusavy Zdenek, Jansova Magdalena, Kalis Vladimir
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Faculty in Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
NTIS - New Technologies for the Information Society, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Aug;126(2):146-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.025. Epub 2014 May 2.
To conduct an international survey of anal incontinence assessment tools and the need to evaluate frequency of occurrence of fecal urgency.
A questionnaire on the use of anal incontinence assessment tools was distributed between May and December 2012 among clinicians and researchers dealing with anal incontinence, primarily in North America, Europe, and Asia.
A total of 143 responses were collected from 56 (39.2%) obstetricians, gynecologists, and urogynecologists; 71 (49.7%) colorectal surgeons, proctologists, and general surgeons; and 16 (11.2%) physiotherapists, theoretical scientists, and gastroenterologists. Fourteen different tools were reported-most commonly Wexner score (n=78; 48.8%) and St Mark's score (n=29; 18.1%). No scoring system was used by 24 (16.8%) respondents. Thirty-four (28.6%) used multiple tools. There was variation in the reasons given for scoring the frequency of fecal urgency as 4 points when using St Mark's score. Of 96 respondents responding to a query about modifying the St Mark's score, 88 (91.7%) agreed that fecal urgency should be scored according to the frequency of occurrence.
Although the Wexner score neglects fecal urgency, it is the most commonly used scoring system. The study contributes to the standardization of terminology and reproducibility of results in research and clinical management of anal incontinence.
开展一项关于肛门失禁评估工具及评估排便急迫频率必要性的国际调查。
2012年5月至12月期间,向主要来自北美、欧洲和亚洲的从事肛门失禁治疗的临床医生和研究人员发放了一份关于肛门失禁评估工具使用情况的调查问卷。
共收集到143份回复,其中56份(39.2%)来自产科医生、妇科医生和泌尿妇科医生;71份(49.7%)来自结直肠外科医生、直肠科医生和普通外科医生;16份(11.2%)来自物理治疗师、理论科学家和胃肠病学家。报告了14种不同的工具,最常用的是韦克斯纳评分(n = 78;48.8%)和圣马克评分(n = 29;18.1%)。24名(16.8%)受访者未使用任何评分系统。34名(28.6%)使用了多种工具。在使用圣马克评分时,将排便急迫频率评为4分的原因存在差异。在96名回答关于修改圣马克评分问题的受访者中,88名(91.7%)同意应根据发生频率对排便急迫进行评分。
尽管韦克斯纳评分忽略了排便急迫情况,但它仍是最常用的评分系统。该研究有助于肛门失禁研究及临床管理中术语的标准化和结果的可重复性。