Introduction
Fecal incontinence (FI) can be a devastating disease and it may have a significant impact on people’s quality of life and healthcare costs. [
1‐
4] Generally, FI is defined as involuntary loss of feces at least once a month. Different subtypes of FI are recognized and include the type of leakage (for example, soiling, urge FI, passive FI, or combined FI) [
5‐
7]. In a recent systematic review, Ng and colleagues reported that the median prevalence of FI in representative samples of the general populations of amongst others Australia, New Zealand, the USA, the UK, and Canada is 7.3% and ranges from 2.0 to 13.2% [
8]. These findings are in accordance with our study that showed a 7.9% prevalence of FI in the Netherlands [
9]. To date, only a few studies investigated the prevalence of the subtypes of FI, all with varying results [
10‐
12].
Variability in the prevalence of FI can be explained by several factors. Most important are the different diagnostic criteria for FI and its subtypes. The heterogeneity of data collection methods are also known to influence the prevalence of FI. For example, data were collected by questionnaires, telephonic interviews, and digital surveys [
8]. Moreover, most of the studies on the prevalence of the subtypes of FI were performed in patient populations rather than in a sample representing the general population. Finally, the heterogeneity in demographic characteristics might influence the prevalence of FI, because age is considered to have a strong influence on the prevalence of FI [
4,
8]. The higher prevalence of FI in the elderly in comparison to younger age groups may be caused by an increase in comorbidities, such as impaired mobility, which makes it more difficult to reach the toilet in time.
Our primary objective therefore was to examine the prevalence of the subtypes of FI in the general Dutch population. Secondarily, we aimed to investigate the distribution of the symptoms of FI. We also studied the influence on the distribution of the subtypes and symptoms of FI of somatic disorders and types of surgery that known to affect fecal continence.
Materials and methods
Study design
Between 1 September and 1 November 2015, we examined a cross section of the adult Dutch population using the Groningen Defecation and Fecal Continence (DeFeC) questionnaire (supplemental file) [
13]. Data from the general Dutch population were collected by Survey Sampling International. This company, based in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, specializes in conducting surveys. They drew a population-based sample from their database and these people were sent a link that enabled them to fill out the DeFeC questionnaire digitally. Of the 3031 respondents who started filling out the questionnaire, 1642 (54.2%) filled it out completely. From the completed questionnaires, Survey Sampling International randomly selected 1259 (76.7%) respondents to obtain a representative cohort that was equally distributed across sex, region, and age in accordance with the population pyramid of the Netherlands (supplied by Statistics Netherlands) [
14]. These 1259 respondents constituted our total study group of the general Dutch population.
Besides, we assigned each of the respondents in the total study group to either a “healthy” subgroup or a comorbidity subgroup. The comorbidity subgroup comprised 251 respondents who reported a history of bowel or pelvic surgery or who suffered from somatic diseases that could have influenced fecal continence, including intestinal resection, perianal fistula, anal sphincter surgery, hemorrhoid, prostate or rectal prolapse surgery, inflammatory bowel diseases, diabetes, cerebral stroke, neurological disorders (for example, spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis), slow transit constipation, or congenital disorders (for example, anorectal malformation, Hirschsprung’s disease, sacrococcygeal teratoma, or spina bifida). The “healthy” subgroup comprised the remaining 1008 respondents.
Definitions of demographic characteristics
A respondent’s highest level of education was classified as primary (primary or middle school), secondary (high school or vocational education), or tertiary (university or college). Respondents who lived in a small village or a city with a maximum of 50,000 inhabitants were classified as living in a rural environment, while respondents who lived in a city of more than 50,000 inhabitants were classified as living in an urban environment. Respondents’ body mass indices (BMIs, kg/m2) were classified according to WHO guidelines: underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5 to 25 kg/m2), overweight (25 to 30 kg/m2), or obese (> 30 kg/m2).
Definitions of defecation disorders
We defined FI according to the Rome IV criteria, namely recurrent uncontrolled passage of fecal material at least several times a month for the past 6 months [
15]. In both the “healthy” subgroup and the comorbidity subgroup, we classified the respondents with FI according to the type of FI they had. Soiling was defined as accidental passage of small amounts of feces (that is, staining or soiling of underpants). Urge FI was defined as feeling a strong urge to defecate and being unable to reach the toilet in time to prevent FI, having to rush to the toilet to prevent FI, or the inability to postpone defecation for more than 5 min after feeling urge sensation. Passive FI was defined as accidental passage of large amounts of solid stool in the absence of urge sensation. To determine the severity of FI, we calculated the Vaizey incontinence score, [
16] and the Continence Grading Scale as described by Jorge and Wexner [
17].
All medical information was reported by the respondents themselves and because they filled in the questionnaires anonymously we could not review their medical records.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed with SPSS for Windows, Version 23.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). We reported median, minimum, and maximum values. Comparisons between the “healthy” subgroup and the comorbidity subgroup were performed using the Fisher exact and the Mann-Whitney tests. Statistical significance was defined as P ≤ 0.05.
Discussion
We demonstrated that in the general Dutch population the combination of soiling and urge FI was the most common subtype of FI, while passive FI was least common. Respondents in the comorbidity subgroup suffered from FI significantly more often and they suffered from a more severe form of FI than respondents in the “healthy” subgroup. The fact that respondents with comorbidities experienced FI was in itself not surprising. What was striking, however, was that the theoretically “healthy” group appeared not to be so healthy after all, considering the relatively high prevalence of FI in this subgroup. Apparently, FI occurs more often than thought, even in “healthy” subjects.
Why soiling and urge FI occur so often in the Dutch population is unknown, because the exact mechanisms underlying these subtypes of FI has not yet been determined. The high prevalence of soiling, however, may be caused by constipation, soiling is a known consequence of constipation. Recently, we demonstrated that the prevalence of constipation is as high as 24.5% in the general Dutch population [
13]. Urge FI can be a result of a diminished conscious contraction of the external anal sphincter caused by pudendal neuropathy, which in turn may be caused by constipation, even though it may also be the result of factors such as pelvic surgery or somatic diseases.
The low prevalence of passive FI might be explained by our recent finding with regard to the underlying pathophysiology of passive FI [
18,
19]. We found that passive FI can be the result of a diminished unconscious contraction of the external anal sphincter as seen in patients with a non-functioning anal-external sphincter continence reflex (AESCR). Furthermore, we found that unconscious contraction of the external anal sphincter is not affected by aging, in contrast to conscious contraction, which decreases with aging. [
19] Thus, the elderly suffer from urge FI more often than from passive FI, thus explaining the low prevalence of passive FI in the Dutch population.
A few other studies also addressed the distribution of the subtypes of FI [
7,
10,
11,
20]. In our opinion, however, our results cannot be compared with the results reported by these studies on account of differences in study methods. Most importantly, we included a random selection of the general population, while the other studies were limited to patients suffering from FI. Moreover, they used different definitions for the subtypes of FI.
We described the symptoms experienced by the respondents with FI. One of our findings in the comorbidity subgroup was that fecally incontinent respondents felt urge sensation before defecating less often than their fecally continent counterparts. This indicates that FI in the comorbidity subgroup might be caused by sensory nerve dysfunction on account of pelvic floor surgery or comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus. Our assumption is supported by an opposite observation in the “healthy” subgroup: respondents with FI felt urge sensation before defecating comparably often as fecally continent respondents.
Furthermore, we offer two explanations for nocturnal FI reported by 24% of the respondents in the comorbidity subgroup and a remarkable 7% in the “healthy” subgroup. First, in our clinical practice, we see patients with severe forms of dyssnergic defecation who suffer from nocturnal FI. We hypothesize that they, unintentionally, withhold their stool during the day. During sleep, however, conscious contraction to prevent unwanted loss of stool falls away, resulting in nocturnal FI. Second, we hypothesize that the anal-external sphincter continence reflex might be non-functional in some of these respondents. During their waking hours, patients with a non-functioning anal-external sphincter continence reflex are known to have trained themselves to respond to any rectal filling sensation by going to the toilet immediately, thus preventing FI. During asleep, however, this rescue system is inactive. Dysfunction of the anal-external sphincter continence reflex might be explained by nerve damage caused by surgery in the pelvic floor region or by comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus.
Finally, we did not consider the obstetric history of women as a comorbidity because we recently showed that parity is not a risk factor for FI [
21]. However, we did consider anal sphincter operation as a criteria to be assigned to the comorbidity subgroup. Furthermore, as demonstrated by Brusciano and others, it would be interesting to add clinical-functional measurements to demonstrate the underlying factors of FI in a follow-up study [
22,
23].
Limitations
This study might be biased as a result of the low response rate of 54%. This low rate may be explained by the nature of the topic and by the length of the questionnaire. We tried to limit response bias by creating a representative study group in which sex, region, and age were equally distributed in accordance with the population pyramid of the Netherlands. Furthermore, we formed the comorbidity subgroup on the basis of data reported by the respondents in the questionnaires and these data could not be validated against medical records because the questionnaires were anonymous. Anonymity was, however, helpful in obtaining honest answers to embarrassing questions on defecation habits.
Conclusions
The majority of the general Dutch population who suffer from FI report the combination of soiling and urge FI, while the minority report passive FI. Respondents who suffer from chronic diseases or who underwent pelvic floor or bowel surgery suffer from more severe forms of fecal incontinence. In contrast to the “healthy” subgroup, respondents in the comorbidity subgroup who suffered from FI felt urge sensation before defecating significantly less often than their fecally continent counterparts. This indicates that FI in this group might be caused by sensory nerve dysfunction.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.