Gastrointestinal Transit Times in Health as Determined Using Ingestible Capsule Systems: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Ingestible capsule (IC) systems can assess gastrointestinal (GI) transit times as a surrogate for gut motility for extended periods of time within a minimally invasive, radiation-free and ambulatory setting. METHODS: A literature review of IC systems and a systematic review of studies utilizing IC systems to measure GI transit times in healthy volunteers was performed. Screening for eligible studies, data extraction and bias assessments was performed by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis of the results was performed. RESULTS: The literature review identified 23 different IC systems. The systematic review found 6892 records, of which 22 studies were eligible. GI transit time data were available from a total of 1885 healthy volunteers. Overall, seventeen included studies reported gastric emptying time (GET) and small intestinal transit time (SITT). Colonic transit time (CTT) was reported in nine studies and whole gut transit time (WGTT) was reported in eleven studies. GI transit times in the included studies ranged between 0.4 and 15.3 h for GET, 3.3-7 h for SITT, 15.9-28.9 h for CTT and 23.0-37.4 h for WGTT. GI transit times, notably GET, were influenced by the study protocol. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides an up-to-date overview of IC systems and reference ranges for GI transit times. It also highlights the need to standardise protocols to differentiate between normal and pathological function

Evaluating the risk factors for the development of benign disorders of defaecation: a surgical perspective.

PURPOSE: There remains uncertainty as to which risk factors are important for the development of defaecatory problems as a result of heterogeneity of published evidence. Understanding the impact of risk factors may be important in selecting targets for disease prevention or reversal. The aim of this study was to identify and evaluate risk factors for faecal incontinence and chronic constipation. METHODS: Risk factors for chronic constipation and faecal incontinence were long-listed from scientific literature, then anonymously evaluated (by 50 predominantly colorectal surgical experts from the UK Pelvic Floor Society) using a Delphi technique. Each risk factor was rated as independent, a co-factor, or not a risk factor. Independent risk factors were rated between 1 (not important) and 10 (critically important) with mean (± standard deviation) calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-eight risk factors for chronic constipation were evaluated. Eighteen were classed as independent and 16 as co-factors. Opioid analgesia (7.87 ± 2.05), eating disorders (7.80 ± 1.72), and history of abuse (7.70 ± 1.89) were scored as most important independent risk factors. Female sex (6.60 ± 2.02) was considered an independent risk factor but increasing age was rated a co-factor. Thirty-three risk factors for faecal incontinence were evaluated. Twenty were classed as independent and eight as co-factors. Third- or fourth-degree tear (8.88 ± 1.57), instrumental delivery (8.47 ± 1.58), and grand multiparity (8.00 ± 1.63) were rated most important. Increasing age (7.41 ± 2.14) and female sex (7.58 ± 2.05) were both considered independent risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Several risk factors for chronic constipation and faecal incontinence were selected by Delphi approach. These factors will feed forward into Bayesian models of disease prediction that combine data and expert knowledge

Botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of dyssynergic defaecation in adults: A systematic review.

AIM: Dyssynergic defaecation (DD) is characterised by inappropriate co-ordination of the pelvic floor muscles during defaecation, resulting in impaired stool expulsion. The mainstay of treatment is biofeedback and alternative therapies are limited in those who do not respond. This systematic review evaluated Botulinum toxin type A injection (BTXA) as a treatment option for dyssynergia. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies evaluating adult patients with DD treated with BTXA injection into the puborectalis and/or external anal sphincter. All study designs, except case reports, were included in the review with no language restriction. Studies limited to patients with specific neurological diagnoses or with a follow-up period under one month were excluded. Study selection, assessment, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers and results synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Eleven studies (3 RCTs) involving 248 participants were included. All studies used the transanal approach to deliver the injection, most commonly at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions using digital palpation for guidance. The most commonly used patient position was left lateral and most studies did not use any anaesthesia. The dose of BTXA varied (Botox 12-100 units, Dysport 100-500 units) and outcomes measured were heterogeneous (global rating +/- up to 5 investigations). Symptomatic improvement varied between 29.2% and 100% and adverse effects occurred in 0% to 70%. CONCLUSION: The evidence to support using BTX for DD is poor and only covers a transanal approach. Future studies should redress these limitations: heterogeneity of design, dose and outcome measures

The clinical impact of obesity in patients with disorders of defecation: a cross-sectional study of 1,155 patients.

ObjectivesObesity is a global epidemic. Its clinical impact on symptoms of fecal incontinence (FI) and/or constipation and underlying anorectal pathophysiology remains uncertain.MethodsCross-sectional study of consecutive patients meeting Rome IV criteria for FI and/or functional constipation, with data on body mass index (BMI), attending a tertiary center for investigation between 2017-2021. Clinical history, symptoms and anorectal physiologic test results were analyzed according to BMI categories.Results1,155 patients (84% female) were included in the analysis (33.5% normal BMI; 34.8% overweight; 31.7% obese). Obese patients had higher odds of FI to liquid stools (69.9 vs. 47.8%, OR 1.96 [CI: 1.43-2.70]), use of containment products (54.6% vs. 32.6%, OR 1.81 [1.31-2.51]), fecal urgency (74.6% vs. 60.7%, OR 1.54 [1.11-2.14]) urge FI (63.4% vs 47.3%, OR 1.68 [1.23-2.29]), and vaginal digitation (18.0% vs 9.7%, OR 2.18 [1.26-3.86]). Higher proportions of obese patients had Rome criteria-based FI or coexistent FI and functional constipation (37.3%, 50.3%) compared with overweight (33.8%, 44.8%) and normal BMI patients (28.9%, 41.1%). There was a positive linear association between BMI and anal resting pressure (β 0.45, R2 0.25, p=0.0003), though the odds of anal hypertension were not significantly higher after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Obese patients more often had a large clinically significant rectocele (34.4% vs. 20.6%, OR 2.62 [1.51-4.55]) compared with normal BMI patients.ConclusionObesity impacts specific defecatory (mainly FI) and prolapse symptoms and pathophysiologic findings (higher anal resting pressure, significant rectocele). Prospective studies are required to determine if obesity is a modifiable risk factor for FI and constipation