ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2013
Rehabilitation of fecal incontinence: what is the influence of anal sphincter lesions?
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the results of rehabilitative treatment of incontinent patients with anal sphincter lesions in order to verify whether these lesions influence the outcome of rehabilitation.
methodsBetween January 2008 and June 2011, 48 patients [36 women, age range 51-77 years; 12 men, age range 57-70 years] affected by fecal incontinence were included in the study. After a preliminary clinical evaluation, including the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI) score, all patients were studied by means of endoanal ultrasound and anorectal manometry. Two patients groups were identified: Group 1 comprised 27 patients with sphincter lesions and Group 2 had 21 patients without sphincter lesions. All 48 underwent a multimodal rehabilitation program. At the end of the rehabilitation program, all patients were reassessed by means of clinical evaluation and anorectal manometry and their data were analyzed.
resultsAlthough we obtained an overall significantly lower FISI score in all patients after rehabilitation (p < 0.001) when compared with pre-treatment values, our study revealed that patients with sphincter lesions had a significantly worse post-rehabilitative FISI score (p < 0.003) when compared with those patients with intact anal sphincters and that there is a linear relationship between post-rehabilitative FISI scores and severity of sphincter lesions (ρ s 0.69).
conclusionsThese data suggest that rehabilitation may be less effective in patients affected by sphincter defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.