Faecal incontinence (FI) is a major health problem, both for individuals and for health systems. It is obvious that, for all these reasons, there is widespread concern for healing it or, at least, reducing as far as possible its numerous undesirable effects, in addition to the high costs it entails. There are different criteria for the diagnostic tests to be carried out and the same applies to the most appropriate treatment, among the numerous options that have proliferated in recent years, not always based on rigorous scientific evidence. For this reason, the Spanish Association of Coloproctology (AECP) proposed to draw up a consensus to serve as a guide for all health professionals interested in the problem, aware, however, that the therapeutic decision must be taken on an individual basis: patient characteristics/experience of the care team. For its development it was adopted the Nominal Group Technique methodology. The Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation were established according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. In addition, expert recommendations were added briefly to each of the items analysed.

Fecal incontinence is the involuntary passage or the incapacity to control the release of fecal matter through the anus. It is a condition that significantly impairs quality of life in those that suffer from it, given that it affects body image, self-esteem, and interferes with everyday activities, in turn, favoring social isolation. There are no guidelines or consensus in Mexico on the topic, and so the Asociación Mexicana de Gastroenterología brought together a multidisciplinary group (gastroenterologists, neurogastroenterologists, and surgeons) to carry out the «Mexican consensus on fecal incontinence» and establish useful recommendations for the medical community. The present document presents the formulated recommendations in 35 statements. Fecal incontinence is known to be a frequent entity whose incidence increases as individuals age, but one that is under-recognized. The pathophysiology of incontinence is complex and multifactorial, and in most cases, there is more than one associated risk factor. Even though there is no diagnostic gold standard, the combination of tests that evaluate structure (endoanal ultrasound) and function (anorectal manometry) should be recommended in all cases. Treatment should also be multidisciplinary and general measures and drugs (lidamidine, loperamide) are recommended, as well as non-pharmacologic interventions, such as biofeedback therapy, in selected cases. Likewise, surgical treatment should be offered to selected patients and performed by experts.

暂无摘要。

Besides pharmacological and interventional possibilities nonpharmacological options, deriving from behavioural approaches may be helpful in the treatment of migraine. Already consulting a patient reduces frequency of attacks. Relaxation (especially progressive muscle relaxation), endurance sports, and biofeedback as well as cognitive behavioural therapy are effective in treatment of migraine. The combination of these treatment options also with pharmacological treatment increase the positive effects.

Faecal incontinence is a common and disturbing condition, which leads to impaired quality of life and huge social and economic costs. Although recent studies have identified novel diagnostic modalities and therapeutic options, the best diagnostic and therapeutic approach is not yet completely known and shared among experts in this field. The Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists selected a pool of experts to constitute a joint committee on the basis of their experience in treating pelvic floor disorders. The aim was to develop a position paper on the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of faecal incontinence, to provide practical recommendations for a cost-effective diagnostic work-up and a tailored treatment strategy. The recommendations were defined and graded on the basis of levels of evidence in accordance with the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and were based on currently published scientific evidence. Each statement was drafted through constant communication and evaluation conducted both online and during face-to-face working meetings. A brief recommendation at the end of each paragraph allows clinicians to find concise responses to each diagnostic and therapeutic issue.

The second part of the Consensus Statement of the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Italian Society of Colo-Rectal Surgery reports on the treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. There is no evidence that increasing fluid intake and physical activity can relieve the symptoms of chronic constipation. Patients with normal-transit constipation should increase their fibre intake through their diet or with commercial fibre. Osmotic laxatives may be effective in patients who do not respond to fibre supplements. Stimulant laxatives should be reserved for patients who do not respond to osmotic laxatives. Controlled trials have shown that serotoninergic enterokinetic agents, such as prucalopride, and prosecretory agents, such as lubiprostone, are effective in the treatment of patients with chronic constipation. Surgery is sometimes necessary. Total colectomy with ileorectostomy may be considered in patients with slow-transit constipation and inertia coli who are resistant to medical therapy and who do not have defecatory disorders, generalised motility disorders or psychological disorders. Randomised controlled trials have established the efficacy of rehabilitative treatment in dys-synergic defecation. Many surgical procedures may be used to treat obstructed defecation in patients with acquired anatomical defects, but none is considered to be the gold standard. Surgery should be reserved for selected patients with an impaired quality of life. Obstructed defecation is often associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Surgery with the placement of prostheses is replacing fascial surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, but the efficacy and safety of such procedures have not yet been established.