What do colorectal specialists think about female participation in anal intercourse? An online survey of UK coloproctologists.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Tabitha Gana, Lesley Hunt
{"title":"What do colorectal specialists think about female participation in anal intercourse? An online survey of UK coloproctologists.","authors":"Tabitha Gana, Lesley Hunt","doi":"10.1007/s10151-025-03202-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increasing participation in anal intercourse (AI) raises questions about its effects on the female anus. Societal change has moved faster than published literature.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Online survey of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britian & Ireland (ACPGBI) and Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (ASGBI) members to document clinical practice regarding female AI; opinion on female AI in causation of anal pathology; barriers to discussing AI; possible harms and harm reduction and public information.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>91% of consultant colorectal surgeons (CCS) agree female AI causes anal fissures. Only 25% usually or always ask young women with fissures about AI and 31% never ask. Enquiry increases with refractory fissures (34%) and vulnerable patients (57%); 48% of CCS cite fear of patient discomfort, and 40% fear what the patient thinks of them as barriers to enquiry. Eighty per cent of CCS and 85% of pelvic floor specialists (PFS) agree AI can cause internal anal sphincter (IAS) damage and 72% and 78% faecal incontinence (FI) in women. Eleven per cent of CCS and no PFS agreed relaxation techniques, and 17% and 14% lubrication, protect the IAS; 97% of CCS think there should be increased public health awareness about female AI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Experts think participation in AI can cause fissures, IAS damage and FI in women. They are sceptical about the protective value of lubrication and relaxation. Clinical conversations lag behind experts' opinions on the importance and possible consequences of female AI. Concern over patients' feelings are barriers to enquiry. Colorectal specialists think there should be more public health information about female AI.</p>","PeriodicalId":51192,"journal":{"name":"Techniques in Coloproctology","volume":"29 1","pages":"162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12357803/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques in Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-025-03202-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Increasing participation in anal intercourse (AI) raises questions about its effects on the female anus. Societal change has moved faster than published literature.

Method: Online survey of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britian & Ireland (ACPGBI) and Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (ASGBI) members to document clinical practice regarding female AI; opinion on female AI in causation of anal pathology; barriers to discussing AI; possible harms and harm reduction and public information.

Results: 91% of consultant colorectal surgeons (CCS) agree female AI causes anal fissures. Only 25% usually or always ask young women with fissures about AI and 31% never ask. Enquiry increases with refractory fissures (34%) and vulnerable patients (57%); 48% of CCS cite fear of patient discomfort, and 40% fear what the patient thinks of them as barriers to enquiry. Eighty per cent of CCS and 85% of pelvic floor specialists (PFS) agree AI can cause internal anal sphincter (IAS) damage and 72% and 78% faecal incontinence (FI) in women. Eleven per cent of CCS and no PFS agreed relaxation techniques, and 17% and 14% lubrication, protect the IAS; 97% of CCS think there should be increased public health awareness about female AI.

Conclusions: Experts think participation in AI can cause fissures, IAS damage and FI in women. They are sceptical about the protective value of lubrication and relaxation. Clinical conversations lag behind experts' opinions on the importance and possible consequences of female AI. Concern over patients' feelings are barriers to enquiry. Colorectal specialists think there should be more public health information about female AI.

结直肠专家对女性参与肛交有什么看法?英国口腔医生的在线调查。
背景:越来越多的人参与肛交(AI)引起了人们对其对女性肛门影响的质疑。社会的变化比出版的文学更快。方法:对英国和爱尔兰直肠协会(ACPGBI)和英国和爱尔兰外科医生协会(ASGBI)会员进行在线调查,记录女性人工智能的临床实践;女性AI在肛门病理病因中的看法讨论人工智能的障碍;可能的危害、减少危害和公共信息。结果:91%的咨询结直肠外科医生(CCS)认为女性AI会导致肛裂。只有25%的人经常或总是问有裂隙的年轻女性有关人工智能的问题,31%的人从不问。难治性骨折(34%)和易感患者(57%)问诊增加;48%的CCS表示担心患者的不适,40%的人担心患者认为他们是问诊的障碍。80%的CCS专家和85%的盆底专家(PFS)认为人工智能会导致内肛门括约肌(IAS)损伤,72%和78%的女性会导致大便失禁(FI)。11%的CCS和无PFS同意的松弛技术,以及17%和14%的润滑,保护了IAS;97%的CCS认为应该提高公众对女性人工智能的健康意识。结论:专家认为参与人工智能会导致女性的裂隙、IAS损伤和FI。他们对润滑和放松的保护价值持怀疑态度。临床对话落后于专家对女性人工智能的重要性和可能后果的看法。对病人感受的担忧是进行询问的障碍。结肠直肠专家认为应该有更多关于女性人工智能的公共卫生信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Techniques in Coloproctology
Techniques in Coloproctology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
176
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Techniques in Coloproctology is an international journal fully devoted to diagnostic and operative procedures carried out in the management of colorectal diseases. Imaging, clinical physiology, laparoscopy, open abdominal surgery and proctoperineology are the main topics covered by the journal. Reviews, original articles, technical notes and short communications with many detailed illustrations render this publication indispensable for coloproctologists and related specialists. Both surgeons and gastroenterologists are represented on the distinguished Editorial Board, together with pathologists, radiologists and basic scientists from all over the world. The journal is strongly recommended to those who wish to be updated on recent developments in the field, and improve the standards of their work. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1965 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the Principles of Laboratory Animal Care (NIH publication no. 86-23 revised 1985) were followed as were applicable national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. Authors will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfill such requirements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信