Abstract
Introduction
Objectively evaluating the lack of bowel control (fecal incontinence) continues to be a challenge. Many have attempted to measure the severity of fecal incontinence and to evaluate its impact on the quality of life by develo** standardized scoring systems. Some of these systems have been validated but none have achieved widespread use and all have limitations in evaluating pediatric patients.
Methods
A review of the literature was performed looking for validated scoring systems of fecal incontinence that are currently used for either adult or pediatric patients. The identified scoring systems were then critically analyzed and their applicability for managing fecally incontinent children considered.
Results
Thirteen of the most frequently used fecal incontinence scoring systems were selected (6 for adults and 7 for children). Quality of life questionnaires were excluded not only because of their length and complexity, but mostly because they do not accurately reflect a measurement of bowel control. Our analysis revealed that all pediatric scoring systems require some degree of interpretation as they included at least one subjective parameter. These unverifiable subjective parameters were: “sensation of rectal fullness”, “sphincter squeeze”, and “anal shape”. Equally problematic, the pediatric systems frequently focused on factors unrelated to fecal continence such as “frequency of bowel movements”, “rectal prolapse”, “abdominal pain”, “blood in the stool”, “leakage of urine”, “diarrhea”, and “constipation”. The most objective system found from our review is the Krickenbeck system, which focuses upon two objective factors. Those two factors are the absence of voluntary bowel movements and the presence of soiling in the underwear. The major weakness of the Krickenbeck system is that it does not allow for reassessment after medical or surgical interventions. In this paper, we propose a modification of the Krickenbeck system that allows for such an assessment to be applied to those patients who are able to achieve voluntary bowel movements with the aid of laxatives or constipating agents.
Conclusions
Most scoring systems are flawed because they invite bias and interpretation due to their subjective nature, while systems focused on measuring quality of life do not address the fundamental issue of bowel control. The Krickenbeck score seems to be the most applicable and objective method of evaluating bowel control in pediatric patients that may be more useful when modified to assess patients after medical intervention.
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig1_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig2_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig3_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig4_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig5_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig6_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig7_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig8_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00383-016-3909-y/MediaObjects/383_2016_3909_Fig9_HTML.gif)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kelly JH (1972) The clinical and radiological assessment of anal continence in childhood. Aust N Z J Surg 42:62–63
Pescatori M, Anastasio G, Bottini C et al (1992) New grading and scoring for anal incontinence. Evaluation of 335 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 35:482–487
Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97
Rintala RJ, Lindahl HG (1999) Posterior sagittal anorectoplasty is superior to sacroperineal-sacroabdominoperineal pull-trough: a long-term follow up study in boys with high anorectal anomalies. J Pediatr Surg 34:334–337
Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA et al (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80
Holschneider AM, Jesch NK, Stragholz E et al (2002) Surgical methods for anorectal malformations from Rehbein to Peña—Critical assessment of score systems and proposal for a new classification. Eur J Pediatr Surg 12:73–82
Holschneider A, Hutson J, Peña A et al (2005) Preliminary report on the international conference for the development of standards for the treatment of anorectal malformations. J Pediatr Surg 40:1521–1526
Brandt ML, Daigneau C, Graviss EA et al (2007) Validation of the Baylor Continence Scale in children with anorectal malformations. J Pediatr Surg 42:1015–1021
Coterrill N, Norton C, Avery K et al (2011) Psychometric evaluation of a new patient—completed questionnaire for evaluating anal incontinence symptoms and impact on quality of life: the ICIQ-B. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1235–1250
Ochi T, Okazaki T, Miyano G et al (2012) A comparison of clinical protocols for assessing postoperative fecal continence in anorectal malformation. Pediatr Surg Int 28:1–4
Sansoni J, Hawthorne G, Fleming G et al (2013) The revised faecal incontinence scale: a clinical validation of a new, short measure for assessment and outcomes evaluation. Dis Col Rec 56:652–659
Rockwood TH (2004) Incontinence severity and QOL Scales for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterol 126:S106–S113
Trajanovska M, Catto-Smith AG (2005) Quality of life measure for fecal incontinence and their use in children. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 20:919–928
Bower WF (2008) Self-reported effect of childhood incontinence on quality of life. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 35:617–621
Lee JT, Madoff RD, Rockwood TH (2015) Quality of life measures of fecal incontinence: is validation valid? Dis Colon Rectum 58:352–357
Filho HS, Mastrodi RA, Klug WA (2015) Quality of life assessment in children with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 58:463–468
Peña A, Levitt M (2002) Colonic inertia disorders in pediatrics. Curr Probl Surg 39:661–730
Bischoff A, Levitt MA, Bauer C et al (2009) Treatment of fecal incontinence with a Comprehensive bowel management program. J Pediatr Surg 44:1278–1284
Bischoff A, Levitt MA, Peña A (2009) Bowel management for the treatment of pediatric fecal incontinence. Pediatr Surg Int 25:1027–1042
Bischoff A, Tovilla M (2010) A practical approach to the management of pediatric fecal incontinence. Semin Pediatr Surg 19:154–159
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bischoff, A., Bealer, J. & Peña, A. Critical analysis of fecal incontinence scores. Pediatr Surg Int 32, 737–741 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-016-3909-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-016-3909-y