You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 45 No. 11, November 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Neurologic cause of idiopathic incontinence

S. Laurberg, M. Swash, S. J. Snooks and M. M. Henry
Sir Alan Parks Physiology Unit, St Mark's Hospital, London, England.

The relationship between the pudendal and perineal nerve terminal motor latencies and descent (weakness) of the perineum on straining was investigated in 31 patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence, and in 30 patients with double incontinence. Pelvic floor descent was correlated with increased pudendal nerve terminal motor latency in both groups of patients. In the patients with double incontinence, there was a less significant correlation between perineal descent and increased perineal nerve terminal motor latency. In the patients with fecal incontinence, but without urinary incontinence, there was no correlation between perineal descent and perineal nerve terminal motor latency. These data support the concept that pelvic floor weakness can result in damage to the pudendal and perineal nerves, leading to fecal and urinary incontinence. In patients with isolated fecal incontinence the perineal nerves are relatively spared. Thus these common types of incontinence probably have a neurologic cause, and neurophysiologic methods can be used in their assessment.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Quantitative Electromyography of the Anal Sphincter After Uncomplicated Vaginal Delivery
Gregory et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:327-335.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1988 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.