Garg incontinence scores: New scoring system on the horizon to evaluate fecal incontinence. Will it make a difference?

The main aim of this opinion review is to comment on the recent article published by Garg et al in the World Journal of Gastroenterology 2023;29:4593–4603.The authors in the published article developed a new scoring system,Garg incon-tinence scores(GIS),for fecal incontinence(FI).FI is a chronic debilitating disease that has a severe negative impact on the quality of life of the patients.Rome IV criteria define FI as multiple episodes of solid or liquid stool passed into the clothes at least twice a month.The associated social stigmatization often leads to significant under-reporting of the condition,which further impairs management.An important point is that the complexity and vagueness of the disease make it difficult for the patients to properly define and report the magnitude of the problem to their physicians.Due to this,the management becomes even more difficult.This issue is resolved up to a considerable extent by a scoring ques-tionnaire.There were several scoring systems in use for the last three decades.The prominent of them were the Cleveland Clinic scoring system or the Wexner scoring system,St.Marks Hospital or Vaizey’s scores,and the FI severity index.However,there were several shortcomings in these scoring systems.In the opinion review,we tried to analyze the strength of GIS and compare it to the existing scoring systems.The main pitfalls in the existing scoring systems were that most of them gave equal weightage to different types of FI(solid,liquid,flatus,etc.),were not comprehensive,and took only the surgeon’s perception of FI into view.In GIS,almost all shortcomings of previous scoring systems had been addressed:different weights were assigned to different types of FI by a robust statistical methodology;the scoring system was made comprehensive by including all types of FI that were previously omitted(urge,stress and mucus FI)and gave priority to patients’rather than the physicians’perceptions while developing the scoring system.Due to this,GIS indeed looked like a paradigm shift in the evaluation of FI.However,it is too early to conclude this,as GIS needs to be validated for accuracy and simplicity in future studies.

New objective scoring system to clinically assess fecal incontinence

BACKGROUND Several scoring systems are used to assess fecal incontinence(FI),among which,the most commonly used are Wexner and Vaizey’s scoring systems.However,there are significant lacunae in these scoring systems,due to which they are neither accurate nor comprehensive.AIM To develop a new scoring system for FI that is accurate,comprehensive,and easy to use.METHODS A pro forma was made in which six types of FI were included:solid,liquid,flatus,mucous,stress,and urge.The weight for each FI was determined by asking a group of patients and laypersons to give a disability score to each type of FI from 0 to 100(0-least,100-maximum disability).The disability was assessed on a modified EQ-5D+(EuroQol)description system,4D3L(4 dimensions and 3 levels)for each FI.The average score of each FI was calculated,divided by 10,and rounded off to determine the weight of each FI type.The scores for the three levels of frequency of each FI were assigned as never=0(No episode of FI ever),occasional=1(≤1 episode of FI/wk),and common=2(>1 episode of FI/wk),and was termed as frequency score.The score for each FI would be derived by multiplying the frequency score and the weight for that FI type.In the second phase of the study,a group of colorectal surgeons was asked to rank the six FI types in order of severity,and their ranking was compared with the patient and laypersons’rankings.RESULTS Fifty patients and 50 laypersons participated in the study.The weight was assigned to each FI(solid-8,liquid-8,urge-7,flatus-6,mucus-6,and stress-5),and an new scoring system was formulated.The maximum possible score was 80(total incontinence),and the least 0(no incontinence).The surgeons’ranking of FI severity did not correlate well with patients’and laypersons’rankings of FI,highlighting that surgeons and patients may perceive the severity of FI differently.CONCLUSION A new scoring system for FI was formulated,which was simple,logical,comprehensive,and easy to use,and eliminated previous shortcomings.Patients’and surgeons’perceptions of FI severity of FI did not correlate well.

Impact of intravenous dexmedetomidine on postoperative bowel movement recovery after laparoscopic nephrectomy: A consortprospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND Postoperative ileus is a frequent postoperative complication,especially after abdominal surgery.Sympathetic excitation is the primary factor for postoperative ileus.Sympathetic activation becomes increased by surgical stress,postoperative pain,and inflammation.Dexmedetomidine(DEX)can inhibit sympathetic nerve activity,inflammation,and pain.AIM To observe whether DEX promotes bowel movements in patients after laparoscopic nephrectomy.METHODS One hundred and twenty patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy were assigned to three groups:C(normal saline infusion),D1(DEX 0.02μg/kg/h),and D2(DEX 0.04μg/kg/h).The primary outcomes were the recorded times to first flatus,defecation,and eating after surgery.The secondary outcomes were postoperative pain,assessed using the numerical rating scale(NRS),adverse effects,and the duration of the postoperative hospital stay.RESULTS The times to first flatus,defecation,and eating in groups D1 and D2 were significantly shorter than those in group C(P<0.01).The NRS scores at 8 h and 24 h after surgery were significantly lower in groups D1 and D2 than in group C(P<0.05).No adverse effects were observed(P>0.05).CONCLUSION Postoperative infusion of DEX at 0.04μg/kg/h facilitates bowel movements in patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy.