TY - JOUR
T1 - Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Faecal Incontinence-A UEG/ESCP/ESNM/ESPCG collaboration
AU - Assmann, S.L.
AU - Keszthelyi, D.
AU - Kleijnen, J.
AU - Anastasiou, F.
AU - Bradshaw, E.
AU - Brannigan, A.E.
AU - Carrington, E.V.
AU - Chiarioni, G.
AU - Ebben, L.D.A.
AU - Gladman, M.A.
AU - Maeda, Y.
AU - Melenhorst, J.
AU - Milito, G.
AU - Muris, J.W.M.
AU - Orhalmi, J.
AU - Pohl, D.
AU - Tillotson, Y.
AU - Rydningen, M.
AU - Svagzdys, S.
AU - Vaizey, C.J.
AU - Breukink, S.O.
N1 - Funding Information:
This guideline was funded by the UEG and the ESCP.
Funding Information:
The most recent guideline for management of faecal incontinence in adults was published in 2007.3 Since then, a large number of studies have been published related to the treatment and diagnosis of faecal incontinence. As such, the goal of this project was to create an up-to-date joint European clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI), using the best available evidence. This guideline has been created in cooperation with members from United European Gastroenterology (UEG), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG). This guideline provides guidance on the added value of diagnostic tests and the effectiveness of management options for FI. The guideline contains the following chapters: - Evaluation of symptoms, diagnosis and classification - First line treatment - Diagnostic tests prior to second line treatment - Second line: non-surgical interventions - Second line: surgical interventions - Special situations - Other and developing treatments Evaluation of symptoms, diagnosis and classification First line treatment Diagnostic tests prior to second line treatment Second line: non-surgical interventions Second line: surgical interventions Special situations Other and developing treatments The management options have been grouped into chapters to improve readability. There is a variation between countries and sometimes even hospitals in which treatment options are available at which point in the treatment pathway of a patient suffering from FI. Some treatment options may be available to you or your patient at an earlier or later time point and may not correspond exactly to the order in which they have been presented within these guidelines. This guideline is intended for use for all healthcare professionals treating patients with FI (e.g., general practitioners, gastroenterologists, colorectal surgeons, nurses etc.) and for any patients with FI who are interested in further information regarding the diagnosis and management of FI. To summarise the results of this current guideline, an evidence-based treatment algorithm (Figure 1) has been created which presents the most important recommendations formulated in this guideline. We suggest using this algorithm as a guide in combination with the main body of text to determine which possible steps can be taken when treating a patient with FI. Treatment algorithm Faecal Incontinence This guideline was funded by the UEG and the ESCP. The Guideline Development Group had full control over the wording of the guideline without any influence from the funding body. The full method can be found in Appendix 1. These guidelines have been created in cooperation with members from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG). These members made up the guideline development group (GDG). Additionally, a patient advisory board (PAB) was created to reflect and comment on the draft guidelines from a patient perspective. Relevant review questions were established by the GDG along with a set of outcomes most important for decision making. A systematic literature search was performed using these review questions and outcomes as a framework. For each predefined review question, the study or studies with the highest level of study design were included. If evidence of a higher-level study design was available, no lower level of evidence was sought or included. Data from the studies were extracted by two reviewers for each predefined important outcome within each review question. Where possible, forest plots were created. After summarising the results for each review question, a systematic quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach was performed. For each review question, we assessed the quality of evidence for every predetermined important outcome. After evidence review and quality assessment were completed, recommendations could be formulated. The wording used for each recommendation was dependent on the level of quality of evidence. Lower levels of evidence resulted in weaker recommendations and higher levels of evidence resulted in stronger recommendations. Recommendations were discussed within the GDG to reach consensus. The authors would like to report the following potential conflict(s) of interest: D. Keszthelyi, ZonMw (Dutch government), Foundation for Gastroenterology (MLDS), Allergan, Grunenthal GmbH, Will Pharma SA research supports, Bayer GmbH, Biocodex Benelux consulatation fees; J. Kleijnen, European Society of Coloproctology consultation fees; E. Bradshaw, Medtronic honoraria; E.V. Carrington, MMS/Sandhill scientific research suppor, Laborie consultations fees and speaking at event; G. Chiarioni, Takeda, Alpha sigma consulation fees, Kyowa-Kirin speaking at event, member of the Anorectal Committee of the Rome Foundation and of the International Consultation on Continence; Y. Maeda, Medtronic research support, Creo medical consultation fee and Atellas speaking at event; D. Pohl, Vifor, Alfa Sigma research supports, Sanofi, Allergan, Medtronic consultation fee, Sanofi speaking at event; M. Rydningen, Medtronic consultation fees; C.J. Vaizey, Renew medical stock shareholder and United Kingdom continence society research support; S.O. Breukink, Medtronic research support; M. Gladman, Medtronic consultation fees.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.
PY - 2022/4
Y1 - 2022/4
N2 - Introduction The goal of this project was to create an up-to-date joint European clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI), using the best available evidence. These guidelines are intended to help guide all medical professionals treating adult patients with FI (e.g., general practitioners, surgeons, gastroenterologists, other healthcare workers) and any patients who are interested in information regarding the diagnosis and management of FI. Methods These guidelines have been created in cooperation with members from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG). These members made up the guideline development group (GDG). Additionally, a patient advisory board (PAB) was created to reflect and comment on the draft guidelines from a patient perspective. Relevant review questions were established by the GDG along with a set of outcomes most important for decision making. A systematic literature search was performed using these review questions and outcomes as a framework. For each predefined review question, the study or studies with the highest level of study design were included. If evidence of a higher-level study design was available, no lower level of evidence was sought or included. Data from the studies were extracted by two reviewers for each predefined important outcome within each review question. Where possible, forest plots were created. After summarising the results for each review question, a systematic quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach was performed. For each review question, we assessed the quality of evidence for every predetermined important outcome. After evidence review and quality assessment were completed, recommendations could be formulated. The wording used for each recommendation was dependent on the level of quality of evidence. Lower levels of evidence resulted in weaker recommendations and higher levels of evidence resulted in stronger recommendations. Recommendations were discussed within the GDG to reach consensus. Results These guidelines contain 45 recommendations on the classification, diagnosis and management of FI in adult patients. Conclusion These multidisciplinary European guidelines provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence-based framework with recommendations on the diagnosis and management of adult patients who suffer from FI.
AB - Introduction The goal of this project was to create an up-to-date joint European clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI), using the best available evidence. These guidelines are intended to help guide all medical professionals treating adult patients with FI (e.g., general practitioners, surgeons, gastroenterologists, other healthcare workers) and any patients who are interested in information regarding the diagnosis and management of FI. Methods These guidelines have been created in cooperation with members from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG). These members made up the guideline development group (GDG). Additionally, a patient advisory board (PAB) was created to reflect and comment on the draft guidelines from a patient perspective. Relevant review questions were established by the GDG along with a set of outcomes most important for decision making. A systematic literature search was performed using these review questions and outcomes as a framework. For each predefined review question, the study or studies with the highest level of study design were included. If evidence of a higher-level study design was available, no lower level of evidence was sought or included. Data from the studies were extracted by two reviewers for each predefined important outcome within each review question. Where possible, forest plots were created. After summarising the results for each review question, a systematic quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach was performed. For each review question, we assessed the quality of evidence for every predetermined important outcome. After evidence review and quality assessment were completed, recommendations could be formulated. The wording used for each recommendation was dependent on the level of quality of evidence. Lower levels of evidence resulted in weaker recommendations and higher levels of evidence resulted in stronger recommendations. Recommendations were discussed within the GDG to reach consensus. Results These guidelines contain 45 recommendations on the classification, diagnosis and management of FI in adult patients. Conclusion These multidisciplinary European guidelines provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence-based framework with recommendations on the diagnosis and management of adult patients who suffer from FI.
KW - clinical guidelines
KW - diagnosis
KW - faecal incontinence
KW - fecal incontinence
KW - GRADE
KW - guidelines
KW - ptns
KW - treatment
KW - Sacral neuromodulation
KW - unwanted loss of feces
KW - SACRAL NERVE-STIMULATION
KW - RANDOMIZED-CONTROLLED-TRIAL
KW - SHAM ELECTRICAL-STIMULATION
KW - STABILIZED HYALURONIC-ACID
KW - INJECTABLE BULKING AGENTS
KW - LOW ANTERIOR RESECTION
KW - DOUBLE-BLIND
KW - TOPICAL PHENYLEPHRINE
KW - BIOFEEDBACK TREATMENT
KW - TRANSANAL IRRIGATION
U2 - 10.1002/ueg2.12213
DO - 10.1002/ueg2.12213
M3 - Article
C2 - 35303758
SN - 2050-6406
VL - 10
SP - 251
EP - 286
JO - United European Gastroenterology Journal
JF - United European Gastroenterology Journal
IS - 3
ER -