Irritable bowel syndrome worsens faecal incontinence after primary repair of major obstetric anal sphincter injuries

AIM

Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) occur in approximately 3%-6% of vaginal deliveries and are the leading risk factor for late-onset faecal incontinence, which is an underdiagnosed pathology. The aim of this work was to use a validated scoring system to quantify the effect of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) on the severity of faecal incontinence symptoms after primary repair of major OASIS (Grade IIIb-IV).

METHOD

A prospective cohort study was performed on all women who underwent primary repair of major OASIS over a 6-year period. They were assessed with ultrasonography within 12 weeks. Two control groups (who did not have OASIS) were women who underwent elective caesarean section and primigravid women. Questionnaires were sent at least 12 months after delivery, or at first consultation for primigravids, which generated the main outcome measures: Cleveland Clinic faecal incontinence severity scores and the presence of IBS based on Rome III criteria.

RESULTS

There was a total of 211 patients included in the three groups and the mean follow-up time was 26 months after sphincter repair. Ultrasonographic sphincter defects were detected in 37% but did not affect the faecal incontinence score (p = 0.47), except in patients with IBS. Within each group, patients with IBS had significantly worse faecal incontinence than those without. Women with both OASIS and IBS had the most severe faecal incontinence scores.

CONCLUSION

OASIS has a limited negative effect on faecal incontinence, independent of whether residual ultrasonographic sphincter defects are present. However, the presence of IBS has a significant compounding effect on faecal incontinence in OASIS patients. The effect of IBS on faecal incontinence is also notable in caesarean section patients and primigravids, suggesting that IBS is an independent risk-factor that should have its place in predelivery assessment and counselling.

Non-commercial surrogacy: an account of patient management in the first Dutch Centre for IVF Surrogacy, from 1997 to 2004

BACKGROUND

Surrogacy was prohibited in the Netherlands until 1994, at which time the Dutch law was changed from the general prohibition of surrogacy to the prohibition of commercial surrogacy. This paper describes the results from the first and only Dutch Centre for Non-commercial IVF Surrogacy between 1997 and 2004.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted of all intended parents, and surrogate mothers and their partners (if present), in which medical, psychological and legal aspects of patient selection were assessed by questionnaires and interviews developed for this study.

RESULTS

More than 500 couples enquired about surrogacy by telephone or e-mail. More than 200 couples applied for surrogacy in the Centre, of which, after extensive screening, 35 couples actually entered the IVF programme and 24 completed the treatment, resulting in 16 children being born to 13 women. Recommendations for non-commercial surrogacy are given, including abandoning the 1-year waiting period before adoption, currently dictated by law, avoiding a period of unnecessary psychological distress.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has shown that non-commercial IVF surrogacy is feasible, with good results in terms of pregnancy outcome and psychological outcome for all parents, and with no legal problems relating to the adoption procedures arising. The extensive screening of medical, psychological and legal aspects was a key element in helping to ensure the safety and success of the procedure.