Constipation - FunctionalReVoNCT06100055
The ReVo Study: Low-volume vs High-volume Rectal Irrigation
A study testing Rectal Irrigation in people with Constipation - Functional and Constipation, run by Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Rectal irrigation, which is the introduction of warm tap water through the anal canal into the rectum to initiate defaecation, is recommended to be considered in patients with chronic constipation, which is refractory to conservative measures such as lifestyle modification, laxatives, nurse-led bowel retraining… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Constipation - Functional, Constipation, Constipation by Outlet Obstruction
- What is being tested?
- Rectal Irrigation
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 180 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 10 May 2024to 30 Jul 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All adult patients over 18 years who have self-reported problematic constipation secondary to evacuation disorders
- With symptom onset of more than 6 months
- Symptoms must meet American College of Gastroenterology definition of constipation which is symptoms including unsatisfactory defecation with either infrequent stools, difficulty in passing stool or both for at least previous 3 months (25)
- All should have tried and failed conservative management (laxatives, life-style modification and bio-feedback)
- Patients should also have ability and willingness to give informed consent.
- Patients or carer should be able to use rectal irrigation
Who cannot join
- Patients with
- Major colorectal resection surgery, pelvic floor surgery to address defaecatory problems such as posterior vaginal repair, STARR, rectopexy and sacral nerve stimulation within last three months
- Pregnancy
- Active rectal bleeding
- Colorectal cancer
- Complicated diverticular disease or acute diverticulitis
Show all 11Show fewer
- Anal or colorectal stenosis
- Inflammatory bowel disease
- Undergoing chemotherapy
- Ischemic colitis
- Used rectal irrigation in the past one year
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The ReVo Study (REctal Irrigation VOlume Study - 'Low Versus High Volume Irrigation - Optimising Rectal Irrigation Volume in Evacuatory Dysfunction'; A Randomised Controlled Trial)
Rectal irrigation, which is the introduction of warm tap water through the anal canal into the rectum to initiate defaecation, is recommended to be considered in patients with chronic constipation, which is refractory to conservative measures such as lifestyle modification, laxatives, nurse-led bowel retraining programmes which focuses on bio-feedback as well as psychosocial support.
Two systems of rectal irrigation are available based on volume delivered, low and high volume. It is unknown if one type of irrigation is superior to the other and whether one type has better outcomes in patients with a particular pathology.
Read more
Therefore, a comparison is required between the two types of irrigation to assess their acceptability as a therapy and response rates in patients with chronic constipation secondary to difficulty emptying rectum.
This trial/research aims to compare low-volume rectal irrigation with high-volume rectal irrigation in patients with chronic constipation secondary to disorders of difficulty emptying rectum.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
- if one type of rectal irrigation is superior to the other
- whether one type of rectal irrigation has better outcomes in patients with a particular pathology on pelvic floor ultrasound
- assess the acceptability and response rates to rectal irrigation.
Participants upon recruitment will be allocated to either low-volume rectal irrigation or high volume rectal irrigation groups. This will purely be by chance where the possibility of being in either of the groups will be 50%. They will then undergo a baseline assessment with four quality-of-life questionnaires and clinical examination. Following this a pelvic floor ultrasound will be performed to assess the cause of their symptoms. Lastly they will be provided training on using rectal irrigation (the type they have been assigned to). They will then be asked to commence irrigation at home from the next day.
Participants will continue to use irrigation for three months and then have a three-monthly follow-up where the quality of life questionnaires will be filled again. This data will then be used to assess any improvement in symptoms after using rectal irrigation. After three months of using rectal irrigation, participation in the trial will come to and end.
Read the detailed description
Rectal irrigation(RI) is introducing warm tap water through the anal canal into the rectum to initiate defaecation. It is recommended that rectal irrigation be considered in patients with evacuation disorders refractory to conservative measures and bio-feedback before performing surgery.
RI is provided either as low-volume(LV) or high-volume(HV). It is unknown if one type of RI is superior to the other and whether one type of RI has better outcomes in patients with a particular pathology.
This randomised controlled trial aims to compare outcomes between two types of RI (LV and HV) and assess efficacy and acceptability of RI as a therapy in patients with Chronic constipation (CC) secondary to evacuation disorders (ED).
Primary Objective To compare the impact of LV RI versus HV RI, upon disease-specific quality of life at three months in patients with CC secondary to ED.
Secondary Objectives
- Improvement in participants' symptoms from RI by measuring symptoms severity score at three months.
- To identify if subgroup of participants with anatomical or pathophysiological variant of ED identified on integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound (TPFUS) will have different outcome from using RI
- Compliance to allocated type of RI and reasons for discontinuation.
Visit 0 (V0): Potentially eligible participants will be identified by the Co-investigator(TG) from Telephone triage assessment clinic, bio-feedback clinic(BFB) and Multi-Disciplinary Meeting in PFU at St. Thomas' Hospital. TG will introduce the research to eligible participants by contacting via telephone or during BFB.
Eligible participants will be provided with an information pack with invitation letter, participant information sheet (PIS) and two consent forms with a return label to post one of the consent forms back for record. PIS will have all details and explanation of the aims, methods, anticipated benefits and possible risks of RI. It will also have contact details of the Principle Investigator (PI) and the TG should eligible participants have any questions regarding the research trial before participating or to escalate concerns during participation. Participants will have at least 48 hours to consider participation.
Telephone Appointment (TA): This will scheduled at least 48 hours after the eligible participant has received the information pack. TG will contact the eligible participant to discuss the trial in detail and answer any queries. After discussion, if eligible participant is happy to participate, both consent forms will be signed. Participants will then be asked to return one consent form to the department for record (return label provided). There is no obligation for eligible participants to give reasons for non-participation.
Participants during the trial can withdraw anytime without giving reasons and return to routine care. However, data collected up to that point will be used to analyse current research as per PIS and consent form.
After consent, a participant journal (PJ) will be posted with instructions to fill it in. PJ will record all participants' medications and visits to healthcare professionals for constipation in the past three months. It will also record bowel frequency two weeks before participants' first face-to-face appointment.
Visit 1, Face-to-face (V1F): Baseline assessment, randomisation, TPFUS and training in RI Participants will have medical history taken and undergo a physical examination of their back passage and vagina (female participants). Participants will be asked to hand over PJ filled at home and fill in four questionnaires which will help investigators assess impact of constipation on participants' daily routine. These are PAC-QOL, PAC-SYM, ICIQ-B and ODS-S as described in outcome measures.
Participants will be randomly assigned 1:1 into two groups; LV RI and HV RI. Investigators will use online software (Clinical trial randomisation tool by National Cancer Institute) for randomisation. Both LV and HV irrigation will be given a code by TG. PI will perform randomisation and will perform allocation concealment using sealed envelopes.
Participants will undergo TPFUS which is routinely performed on all our patients. It uses inaudible sound waves to provide real-time static and dynamic multi-compartmental pelvic floor assessment of anatomical and functional aspects.
The RI systems used in our unit are commercially available on prescription in National Health Service (NHS) practice. Participants will receive training on using RI system from our Nurse Specialist and will be provided equipment to commence RI at home from the next day. Participants will be shown how to record the frequency and volume of RI in the PJ and record any side effects, such as pain, bleeding, etc.
Participants will be contacted via telephone one week later to check for any issues. If necessary, investigators will arrange another training.
Visit 2- face to face (V2F): This appointment will be three months after starting RI where participants will fill in outcome questionnaires as in previous visit and PJ will be collected. This will end participation in the research trial and participants will return to routine care in our department.
During 3-month follow-up, participants may be withdrawn from the trial if become lost to follow-up after at least three failed attempts by TG to make contact via at least two different methods (e.g., telephone, email and letter), choose to withdraw and do not wish to participate in follow-up data collection or lose capacity.
The interventions (LV and HV RI) proposed are those already being offered to patients with CC secondary to ED in the Pelvic Floor Unit(PFU), St. Thomas' Hospital and many specialist centres globally. All interventions pose acceptable risks. TPFUS has been performed routinely in most specialist centres and is considered safe. RI has proven to be a low-risk intervention and has been widely used for a variety of ED. Serious adverse events (SAE) are rare, with one study reporting two non-fatal bowel perforations out of approximately 110,000 irrigation therapy. Other possible side effects include rectal pain, bleeding, painful haemorrhoids and anal fissure. A recent study reported an overall adverse event (AE) rate of 22% with all minor and reversible events considered.
This trial is categorised as Type A i.e. no higher than the risk of standard medical care.
Any AE or SAE reported by participant will be reported to the sponsor and Ethical committee by the PI. The PI may take urgent safety measures to ensure the safety and protection of the participants. The PI will send the Annual Progress Report to the sponsor and Ethical committee.
If the PI determines that, is it within the best interests of the participants to terminate the study, written notification will be given to the sponsor following which participants will be returned to the routine NHS care.
The research team in the PFU will be meeting every two weeks. A trial risk assessment will be conducted in collaboration with the PI and an appropriate trial monitoring and auditing plan will be produced. This will be authorised by the sponsor.
PAC-QOL comprises of 28 questions scored 0-4. Average score of the non-missing questions is calculated by total score divided by number of questions responded, is taken as participant score out of 4. Considering improvement in score of 10% as clinically relevant, we calculated sample size keeping level of significance as 5%, power as 90% and standard deviation of 0.8 in low-volume RI and 0.7 in high-volume RI groups as reported by Emmett CC et al. Adjusting for loss to follow up of 10%, we will need 83 participants in each group. However, should there be a greater than 10% dropout rate which we do not feel will be the case, we will then recruit more participants to be able to analyse with a significance of 5% and power of 90%.
Primary outcome Investigators plan to conduct intention to treat analysis to compare the two types of RI at the end of 3 months. Difference in improvement in PAC-QOL score will be tested using paired sample t-test. Results will be reported as means along with standard deviations of difference in pre and post rectal irrigation for both groups and the mean difference of two interventions along with 95% confidence interval with p-value less than 0.05 will be taken as statistically significant.
Secondary outcomes Investigators plan to conduct stratified analysis based upon findings on TPFUS (anatomical vs functional causes of CC secondary to evacuation disorders). Compliance to RI will be shown via proportion of participants using it at the end of 3 months. Adverse effects from RI will be presented as frequencies. Appropriate regression models will be developed to determine the influence of pre-treatment characteristics on the success of RI in all sub-groups. Analysis will be performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences which is an online software platform where P < 0.05 will be taken to indicate statistical significance.
Investigators plan to conduct interim analysis at half the required sample size. At this point, the efficacy outcome will be evaluated and if the difference between two types of RI is statistically significant enough to reach p-value of < 0.01 then that would be considered as sufficient evidence to establish the superiority of one irrigation system over another and continuing the trial further would not be justified.
In the event of a required protocol amendment, details will be submitted to the sponsor for authorisation.
Data Protection: Upon recruitment, identifiable participant data (IPD) will be collected on paper (CRF) to contact participants. CRF will be stored in locked cabinets while electronic data in a password protected file(PPF) on Microsoft access (MA). Only PI and TG will have access to IPD.
TG will generate and assign a unique trial registration code (UTRC) to each participant. Each participant's data will be collected and stored against the UTRC (pseudonymization). CRF will be kept in locked cabinets while electronic data will be recorded in PPF on MA. The participant's general practitioner will be informed of their participation after obtaining consent.
After data collection has ended, TG will create a copy of collected data without the UTRC in a PPF on Microsoft Access, thus completely anonymising data which will be emailed to the Statistician via encrypted email for analysis.
This study is sponsored by Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GSTFT) and indemnity is provided through NHS indemnity for clinical negligence. GSTFT is a member of the clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts.
The project will be under PI and sponsor. The project will be overseen by PI and co-Investigators. The role of the PI will be to provide overall supervision of the study on behalf of the sponsor to ensure that research trial is conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) relevant regulations.
A study launch meeting will be conducted. This will include training in the trial protocol, data collection, randomisation and taking informed consent.
The participants will not be identifiable with regards to any future publications. After trial completion, the pseudonymized records will be kept for a further five years and archived with Iron Mountain. All IPD will also be archived for a period of five years in locked cabinets in the Pelvic Floor Unit at St. Thomas' Hospital, therefore no third party will have access to it. At the end of the five-year retention period, permission will be obtained in writing from the sponsor prior to destruction of this material.
Once results are available, they will first be presented in a departmental meeting, followed by submission of a summary to health research authority. A brief summary of the outcomes will be posted to the participants. Finally results will be submitted to scientific journals or presented at a conference not involving any IPD.
- Conditions
- Constipation - Functional, Constipation, Constipation by Outlet Obstruction, Defecation Disorder
- Being tested
- Rectal Irrigation
- Keywords
- chronic constipation, rectal irrigation, evacuation disorders, low-volume rectal irrigation, high-volume rectal irrigation
- Medical subject headings
- Constipation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Rectal IrrigationDevice
Also called trans-anal irrigation
Rectal irrigation is the introduction of warm tap water through the anal canal into the rectum to initiate defaecation.
Two alternative irrigation systems based on volume delivered exist: low-volume irrigation system depending on the manufacturer delivers approximately between 110ml to 300ml per irrigation and high-volume irrigation system delivers between 300ml to 1500ml per irrigation.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Low-volume rectal irrigation | Active comparator | This system consists of a small reservoir attached to a cone. Depending on the manufacturer, the reservoir can hold approximately between 110ml and 300ml of water. This reservoir is squeezed to inject water into the rectum. The regime will be such that participants will be asked to use rectal irrigation daily for two weeks. They will be restricted to not use rectal irrigation for more than once in a day. Every day they can use up to 300ml for irrigation. After two weeks participants can then adjust the number of irrigation days per week as well as volume used for irrigation but not exceeding irrigation therapy more than once a day and not more than 300ml per irrigation. Volume and frequency of rectal irrigation will be recorded by participant in participant journal. This will be used to check their compliance and average weekly irrigation sessions and volume used for satisfactory outcome. Receives: Device: Rectal Irrigation |
| High-volume rectal irrigation | Active comparator | The high-volume irrigation system consists of an irrigation bag connected to a tube. The water flows into the rectum, either by gravity or by using a pump. Some systems use balloon to hold the device in place during irrigation; others require the user to hold it in place. The mechanism of action is the same for all systems. Participants will start irrigation with 300ml and increase this by 100ml every 2 days until satisfactory defaecation is achieved, or the procedure becomes uncomfortable, up to a maximum of 1500ml. Initial frequency of irrigation is the same as for low-volume irrigation: i.e. once daily for two weeks followed by participant adjustment of number of irrigation days per week as well as volume used for irrigation but no more than 1500ml a day. Participants will be restricted to using high-volume irrigation to not more than once a day. Receives: Device: Rectal Irrigation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Patient Assessment of Constipation - Quality of Life questionnaire (PAC-QOL)
PAC-QOL measures health related quality of life in patients with constipation. Lower score reflects better quality of life where it ranges from 0-112
Measured: At baseline and after three months after using rectal irrigation
Secondary outcomes (3)
Patient Assessment of Constipation - Symptoms (PAC-SYM)
PAC-SYM questionnaire assesses the severity of patient reported symptoms of constipation where score ranges from 0-48 where higher scores indicate more severe symptoms
Measured: At baseline and after three months of using rectal irrigation
Obstructed Defaecation Syndrome - Score (ODS-S)
This questionnaire will be used to diagnose presence of Obstructive Defaecation Syndrome. A score >9 is diagnostic of ODS
Measured: At baseline and after three months of using rectal irrigation
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B)
Evaluates symptoms of anal incontinence and its impact on quality of life (QOL). Scores from 1-21 for bowel pattern, 0-28 for bowel control and 0-26 for impact on quality of life associated with anal incontinence symptoms where higher score is suggestive of worse quality of life.
Measured: At baseline and after three months of using rectal irrigation
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Oct 2023
- Study start10 May 2024
- Primary completion30 Jun 2026
- Study completion30 Jul 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (26)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Constipation - FunctionalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- This is a superiority trial with parallel group design where each participant will receive only one of the two types of intervention (rectal irrigation).
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 180 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Alison Hainsworth, FRCS, Principal investigator, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06100055
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRAS 324658
- Other IDs
- 324658
- Acronym
- ReVo
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 10 Oct 2023
- Last updated
- 7 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No planned analysis other than current study
Publications
Stewart WF, Liberman JN, Sandler RS, Woods MS, Stemhagen A, Chee E, Lipton RB, Farup CE. Epidemiology of constipation (EPOC) study in the United States: relation of clinical subtypes to sociodemographic features. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Dec;94(12):3530-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01642.x.
PubMed 10606315Sonnenberg A, Koch TR. Epidemiology of constipation in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum. 1989 Jan;32(1):1-8. doi: 10.1007/BF02554713.
PubMed 2910654van den Berg MM, Benninga MA, Di Lorenzo C. Epidemiology of childhood constipation: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Oct;101(10):2401-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00771.x.
PubMed 17032205Probert CS, Emmett PM, Heaton KW. Some determinants of whole-gut transit time: a population-based study. QJM. 1995 May;88(5):311-5.
PubMed 7796084Cook IJ, Talley NJ, Benninga MA, Rao SS, Scott SM. Chronic constipation: overview and challenges. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009 Dec;21 Suppl 2:1-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2009.01399.x.
PubMed 19824933Wald A, Scarpignato C, Mueller-Lissner S, Kamm MA, Hinkel U, Helfrich I, Schuijt C, Mandel KG. A multinational survey of prevalence and patterns of laxative use among adults with self-defined constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Oct 1;28(7):917-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03806.x. Epub 2008 Jul 17.
PubMed 18644012Irvine EJ, Ferrazzi S, Pare P, Thompson WG, Rance L. Health-related quality of life in functional GI disorders: focus on constipation and resource utilization. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Aug;97(8):1986-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05843.x.
PubMed 12190165Knowles CH, Grossi U, Horrocks EJ, Pares D, Vollebregt PF, Chapman M, Brown SR, Mercer-Jones M, Williams AB, Hooper RJ, Stevens N, Mason J; NIHR CapaCiTY working group; Pelvic floor Society. Surgery for constipation: systematic review and clinical guidance: Paper 1: Introduction & Methods. Colorectal Dis. 2017 Sep;19 Suppl 3:5-16. doi: 10.1111/codi.13774.
PubMed 28960925Knowles CH, Dinning PG, Pescatori M, Rintala R, Rosen H. Surgical management of constipation. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009 Dec;21 Suppl 2:62-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2009.01405.x.
PubMed 19824939Knowles CH, Scott M, Lunniss PJ. Outcome of colectomy for slow transit constipation. Ann Surg. 1999 Nov;230(5):627-38. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199911000-00004.
PubMed 10561086Shandling B, Gilmour RF. The enema continence catheter in spina bifida: successful bowel management. J Pediatr Surg. 1987 Mar;22(3):271-3. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(87)80345-7.
PubMed 3550032Briel JW, Schouten WR, Vlot EA, Smits S, van Kessel I. Clinical value of colonic irrigation in patients with continence disturbances. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997 Jul;40(7):802-5. doi: 10.1007/BF02055436.
PubMed 9221856Christensen P, Krogh K. Transanal irrigation for disordered defecation: a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010 May;45(5):517-27. doi: 10.3109/00365520903583855.
PubMed 20199336Gardiner A, Marshall J, Duthie G. Rectal irrigation for relief of functional bowel disorders. Nurs Stand. 2004 Nov 10-16;19(9):39-42. doi: 10.7748/ns2004.11.19.9.39.c3755.
PubMed 15574053Crawshaw AP, Pigott L, Potter MA, Bartolo DC. A retrospective evaluation of rectal irrigation in the treatment of disorders of faecal continence. Colorectal Dis. 2004 May;6(3):185-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2004.00584.x.
PubMed 15109384
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The ReVo Study (REctal Irrigation VOlume Study - 'Low Versus High Volume Irrigation - Optimising Rectal Irrigation Volume in Evacuatory Dysfunction'; A Randomised Controlled Trial)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06100055
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- ReVo / IRAS 324658
- Conditions
- Constipation - Functional, Constipation, Constipation by Outlet Obstruction, Defecation Disorder
- Keywords
- chronic constipation, rectal irrigation, evacuation disorders, low-volume rectal irrigation, high-volume rectal irrigation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 180 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 May 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Jul 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Oct 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Rectal irrigation, which is the introduction of warm tap water through the anal canal into the rectum to initiate defaecation, is recommended to be considered in patients with chronic constipation, which is refractory to conservative measures such as lifestyle modification, laxatives, nurse-led bowel retraining programmes which focuses on bio-feedback as well as psychosocial support.
Two systems of rectal irrigation are available based on volume delivered, low and high volume. It is unknown if one type of irrigation is superior to the other and whether one type has better outcomes in patients with a particular pathology.
Therefore, a comparison is required between the two types of irrigation to assess their acceptability as a therapy and response rates in patients with chronic constipation secondary to difficulty emptying rectum.
This trial/research aims to compare low-volume rectal irrigation with high-volume rectal irrigation in patients with chronic constipation secondary to disorders of difficulty emptying rectum.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
- if one type of rectal irrigation is superior to the other
- whether one type of rectal irrigation has better outcomes in patients with a particular pathology on pelvic floor ultrasound
- assess the acceptability and response rates to rectal irrigation.
Participants upon recruitment will be allocated to either low-volume rectal irrigation or high volume rectal irrigation groups. This will purely be by chance where the possibility of being in either of the groups will be 50%. They will then undergo a baseline assessment with four quality-of-life questionnaires and clinical examination. Following this a pelvic floor ultrasound will be performed to assess the cause of their symptoms. Lastly they will be provided training on using rectal irrigation (the type they have been assigned to). They will then be asked to commence irrigation at home from the next day.
Participants will continue to use irrigation for three months and then have a three-monthly follow-up where the quality of life questionnaires will be filled again. This data will then be used to assess any improvement in symptoms after using rectal irrigation. After three months of using rectal irrigation, participation in the trial will come to and end.
Detailed description
Rectal irrigation(RI) is introducing warm tap water through the anal canal into the rectum to initiate defaecation. It is recommended that rectal irrigation be considered in patients with evacuation disorders refractory to conservative measures and bio-feedback before performing surgery.
RI is provided either as low-volume(LV) or high-volume(HV). It is unknown if one type of RI is superior to the other and whether one type of RI has better outcomes in patients with a particular pathology.
This randomised controlled trial aims to compare outcomes between two types of RI (LV and HV) and assess efficacy and acceptability of RI as a therapy in patients with Chronic constipation (CC) secondary to evacuation disorders (ED).
Primary Objective To compare the impact of LV RI versus HV RI, upon disease-specific quality of life at three months in patients with CC secondary to ED.
Secondary Objectives
- Improvement in participants' symptoms from RI by measuring symptoms severity score at three months.
- To identify if subgroup of participants with anatomical or pathophysiological variant of ED identified on integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound (TPFUS) will have different outcome from using RI
- Compliance to allocated type of RI and reasons for discontinuation.
Visit 0 (V0): Potentially eligible participants will be identified by the Co-investigator(TG) from Telephone triage assessment clinic, bio-feedback clinic(BFB) and Multi-Disciplinary Meeting in PFU at St. Thomas' Hospital. TG will introduce the research to eligible participants by contacting via telephone or during BFB.
Eligible participants will be provided with an information pack with invitation letter, participant information sheet (PIS) and two consent forms with a return label to post one of the consent forms back for record. PIS will have all details and explanation of the aims, methods, anticipated benefits and possible risks of RI. It will also have contact details of the Principle Investigator (PI) and the TG should eligible participants have any questions regarding the research trial before participating or to escalate concerns during participation. Participants will have at least 48 hours to consider participation.
Telephone Appointment (TA): This will scheduled at least 48 hours after the eligible participant has received the information pack. TG will contact the eligible participant to discuss the trial in detail and answer any queries. After discussion, if eligible participant is happy to participate, both consent forms will be signed. Participants will then be asked to return one consent form to the department for record (return label provided). There is no obligation for eligible participants to give reasons for non-participation.
Participants during the trial can withdraw anytime without giving reasons and return to routine care. However, data collected up to that point will be used to analyse current research as per PIS and consent form.
After consent, a participant journal (PJ) will be posted with instructions to fill it in. PJ will record all participants' medications and visits to healthcare professionals for constipation in the past three months. It will also record bowel frequency two weeks before participants' first face-to-face appointment.
Visit 1, Face-to-face (V1F): Baseline assessment, randomisation, TPFUS and training in RI Participants will have medical history taken and undergo a physical examination of their back passage and vagina (female participants). Participants will be asked to hand over PJ filled at home and fill in four questionnaires which will help investigators assess impact of constipation on participants' daily routine. These are PAC-QOL, PAC-SYM, ICIQ-B and ODS-S as described in outcome measures.
Participants will be randomly assigned 1:1 into two groups; LV RI and HV RI. Investigators will use online software (Clinical trial randomisation tool by National Cancer Institute) for randomisation. Both LV and HV irrigation will be given a code by TG. PI will perform randomisation and will perform allocation concealment using sealed envelopes.
Participants will undergo TPFUS which is routinely performed on all our patients. It uses inaudible sound waves to provide real-time static and dynamic multi-compartmental pelvic floor assessment of anatomical and functional aspects.
The RI systems used in our unit are commercially available on prescription in National Health Service (NHS) practice. Participants will receive training on using RI system from our Nurse Specialist and will be provided equipment to commence RI at home from the next day. Participants will be shown how to record the frequency and volume of RI in the PJ and record any side effects, such as pain, bleeding, etc.
Participants will be contacted via telephone one week later to check for any issues. If necessary, investigators will arrange another training.
Visit 2- face to face (V2F): This appointment will be three months after starting RI where participants will fill in outcome questionnaires as in previous visit and PJ will be collected. This will end participation in the research trial and participants will return to routine care in our department.
During 3-month follow-up, participants may be withdrawn from the trial if become lost to follow-up after at least three failed attempts by TG to make contact via at least two different methods (e.g., telephone, email and letter), choose to withdraw and do not wish to participate in follow-up data collection or lose capacity.
The interventions (LV and HV RI) proposed are those already being offered to patients with CC secondary to ED in the Pelvic Floor Unit(PFU), St. Thomas' Hospital and many specialist centres globally. All interventions pose acceptable risks. TPFUS has been performed routinely in most specialist centres and is considered safe. RI has proven to be a low-risk intervention and has been widely used for a variety of ED. Serious adverse events (SAE) are rare, with one study reporting two non-fatal bowel perforations out of approximately 110,000 irrigation therapy. Other possible side effects include rectal pain, bleeding, painful haemorrhoids and anal fissure. A recent study reported an overall adverse event (AE) rate of 22% with all minor and reversible events considered.
This trial is categorised as Type A i.e. no higher than the risk of standard medical care.
Any AE or SAE reported by participant will be reported to the sponsor and Ethical committee by the PI. The PI may take urgent safety measures to ensure the safety and protection of the participants. The PI will send the Annual Progress Report to the sponsor and Ethical committee.
If the PI determines that, is it within the best interests of the participants to terminate the study, written notification will be given to the sponsor following which participants will be returned to the routine NHS care.
The research team in the PFU will be meeting every two weeks. A trial risk assessment will be conducted in collaboration with the PI and an appropriate trial monitoring and auditing plan will be produced. This will be authorised by the sponsor.
PAC-QOL comprises of 28 questions scored 0-4. Average score of the non-missing questions is calculated by total score divided by number of questions responded, is taken as participant score out of 4. Considering improvement in score of 10% as clinically relevant, we calculated sample size keeping level of significance as 5%, power as 90% and standard deviation of 0.8 in low-volume RI and 0.7 in high-volume RI groups as reported by Emmett CC et al. Adjusting for loss to follow up of 10%, we will need 83 participants in each group. However, should there be a greater than 10% dropout rate which we do not feel will be the case, we will then recruit more participants to be able to analyse with a significance of 5% and power of 90%.
Primary outcome Investigators plan to conduct intention to treat analysis to compare the two types of RI at the end of 3 months. Difference in improvement in PAC-QOL score will be tested using paired sample t-test. Results will be reported as means along with standard deviations of difference in pre and post rectal irrigation for both groups and the mean difference of two interventions along with 95% confidence interval with p-value less than 0.05 will be taken as statistically significant.
Secondary outcomes Investigators plan to conduct stratified analysis based upon findings on TPFUS (anatomical vs functional causes of CC secondary to evacuation disorders). Compliance to RI will be shown via proportion of participants using it at the end of 3 months. Adverse effects from RI will be presented as frequencies. Appropriate regression models will be developed to determine the influence of pre-treatment characteristics on the success of RI in all sub-groups. Analysis will be performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences which is an online software platform where P < 0.05 will be taken to indicate statistical significance.
Investigators plan to conduct interim analysis at half the required sample size. At this point, the efficacy outcome will be evaluated and if the difference between two types of RI is statistically significant enough to reach p-value of < 0.01 then that would be considered as sufficient evidence to establish the superiority of one irrigation system over another and continuing the trial further would not be justified.
In the event of a required protocol amendment, details will be submitted to the sponsor for authorisation.
Data Protection: Upon recruitment, identifiable participant data (IPD) will be collected on paper (CRF) to contact participants. CRF will be stored in locked cabinets while electronic data in a password protected file(PPF) on Microsoft access (MA). Only PI and TG will have access to IPD.
TG will generate and assign a unique trial registration code (UTRC) to each participant. Each participant's data will be collected and stored against the UTRC (pseudonymization). CRF will be kept in locked cabinets while electronic data will be recorded in PPF on MA. The participant's general practitioner will be informed of their participation after obtaining consent.
After data collection has ended, TG will create a copy of collected data without the UTRC in a PPF on Microsoft Access, thus completely anonymising data which will be emailed to the Statistician via encrypted email for analysis.
This study is sponsored by Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GSTFT) and indemnity is provided through NHS indemnity for clinical negligence. GSTFT is a member of the clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts.
The project will be under PI and sponsor. The project will be overseen by PI and co-Investigators. The role of the PI will be to provide overall supervision of the study on behalf of the sponsor to ensure that research trial is conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) relevant regulations.
A study launch meeting will be conducted. This will include training in the trial protocol, data collection, randomisation and taking informed consent.
The participants will not be identifiable with regards to any future publications. After trial completion, the pseudonymized records will be kept for a further five years and archived with Iron Mountain. All IPD will also be archived for a period of five years in locked cabinets in the Pelvic Floor Unit at St. Thomas' Hospital, therefore no third party will have access to it. At the end of the five-year retention period, permission will be obtained in writing from the sponsor prior to destruction of this material.
Once results are available, they will first be presented in a departmental meeting, followed by submission of a summary to health research authority. A brief summary of the outcomes will be posted to the participants. Finally results will be submitted to scientific journals or presented at a conference not involving any IPD.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This is a superiority trial with parallel group design where each participant will receive only one of the two types of intervention (rectal irrigation).
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Low-volume rectal irrigation | Active comparator | Device: Rectal IrrigationThis system consists of a small reservoir attached to a cone. Depending on the manufacturer, the reservoir can hold approximately between 110ml and 300ml of water. This reservoir is squeezed to inject water into the rectum. The regime will be such that participants will be asked to use rectal irrigation daily for two weeks. They will be restricted to not use rectal irrigation for more than once in a day. Every day they can use up to 300ml for irrigation. After two weeks participants can then adjust the number of irrigation days per week as well as volume used for irrigation but not exceeding irrigation therapy more than once a day and not more than 300ml per irrigation. Volume and frequency of rectal irrigation will be recorded by participant in participant journal. This will be used to check their compliance and average weekly irrigation sessions and volume used for satisfactory outcome. |
| High-volume rectal irrigation | Active comparator | Device: Rectal IrrigationThe high-volume irrigation system consists of an irrigation bag connected to a tube. The water flows into the rectum, either by gravity or by using a pump. Some systems use balloon to hold the device in place during irrigation; others require the user to hold it in place. The mechanism of action is the same for all systems. Participants will start irrigation with 300ml and increase this by 100ml every 2 days until satisfactory defaecation is achieved, or the procedure becomes uncomfortable, up to a maximum of 1500ml. Initial frequency of irrigation is the same as for low-volume irrigation: i.e. once daily for two weeks followed by participant adjustment of number of irrigation days per week as well as volume used for irrigation but no more than 1500ml a day. Participants will be restricted to using high-volume irrigation to not more than once a day. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- All adult patients over 18 years who have self-reported problematic constipation secondary to evacuation disorders
- With symptom onset of more than 6 months
- Symptoms must meet American College of Gastroenterology definition of constipation which is symptoms including unsatisfactory defecation with either infrequent stools, difficulty in passing stool or both for at least previous 3 months (25)
- All should have tried and failed conservative management (laxatives, life-style modification and bio-feedback)
- Patients should also have ability and willingness to give informed consent.
Key exclusion criteria (11 listed)
- Patients with
- Major colorectal resection surgery, pelvic floor surgery to address defaecatory problems such as posterior vaginal repair, STARR, rectopexy and sacral nerve stimulation within last three months
- Pregnancy
- Active rectal bleeding
- Colorectal cancer
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Rectal IrrigationAlso: trans-anal irrigationRectal irrigation is the introduction of warm tap water through the anal canal into the rectum to initiate defaecation. Two alternative irrigation systems based on volume delivered exist: low-volume irrigation system depending on the manufacturer delivers approximately between 110ml to 300ml per irrigation and high-volume irrigation system delivers between 300ml to 1500ml per irrigation. | Device | High-volume rectal irrigation, Low-volume rectal irrigation |
Primary outcome
Patient Assessment of Constipation - Quality of Life questionnaire (PAC-QOL)
Time frame: At baseline and after three months after using rectal irrigation
PAC-QOL measures health related quality of life in patients with constipation. Lower score reflects better quality of life where it ranges from 0-112
3 secondary outcomes
Patient Assessment of Constipation - Symptoms (PAC-SYM)
Time frame: At baseline and after three months of using rectal irrigation
Obstructed Defaecation Syndrome - Score (ODS-S)
Time frame: At baseline and after three months of using rectal irrigation
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Anal Incontinence Symptoms and Quality of Life Module (ICIQ-B)
Time frame: At baseline and after three months of using rectal irrigation
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Oct 2026.
- Background: PubMed 10606315Stewart WF, Liberman JN, Sandler RS, Woods MS, Stemhagen A, Chee E, Lipton RB, Farup CE. Epidemiology of constipation (EPOC) study in the United States: relation of clinical subtypes to sociodemographic features. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Dec;94(12):3530-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01642.x.
- Background: PubMed 2910654Sonnenberg A, Koch TR. Epidemiology of constipation in the United States. Dis Colon Rectum. 1989 Jan;32(1):1-8. doi: 10.1007/BF02554713.
- Background: PubMed 17032205van den Berg MM, Benninga MA, Di Lorenzo C. Epidemiology of childhood constipation: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Oct;101(10):2401-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00771.x.
- Background: PubMed 7796084Probert CS, Emmett PM, Heaton KW. Some determinants of whole-gut transit time: a population-based study. QJM. 1995 May;88(5):311-5.
- Background: PubMed 19824933Cook IJ, Talley NJ, Benninga MA, Rao SS, Scott SM. Chronic constipation: overview and challenges. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009 Dec;21 Suppl 2:1-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2009.01399.x.
- Background: PubMed 18644012Wald A, Scarpignato C, Mueller-Lissner S, Kamm MA, Hinkel U, Helfrich I, Schuijt C, Mandel KG. A multinational survey of prevalence and patterns of laxative use among adults with self-defined constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Oct 1;28(7):917-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03806.x. Epub 2008 Jul 17.
- Background: PubMed 12190165Irvine EJ, Ferrazzi S, Pare P, Thompson WG, Rance L. Health-related quality of life in functional GI disorders: focus on constipation and resource utilization. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Aug;97(8):1986-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05843.x.
- Background: PubMed 28960925Knowles CH, Grossi U, Horrocks EJ, Pares D, Vollebregt PF, Chapman M, Brown SR, Mercer-Jones M, Williams AB, Hooper RJ, Stevens N, Mason J; NIHR CapaCiTY working group; Pelvic floor Society. Surgery for constipation: systematic review and clinical guidance: Paper 1: Introduction & Methods. Colorectal Dis. 2017 Sep;19 Suppl 3:5-16. doi: 10.1111/codi.13774.
- Background: PubMed 19824939Knowles CH, Dinning PG, Pescatori M, Rintala R, Rosen H. Surgical management of constipation. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2009 Dec;21 Suppl 2:62-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2009.01405.x.
- Background: PubMed 10561086Knowles CH, Scott M, Lunniss PJ. Outcome of colectomy for slow transit constipation. Ann Surg. 1999 Nov;230(5):627-38. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199911000-00004.
- Background: PubMed 3550032Shandling B, Gilmour RF. The enema continence catheter in spina bifida: successful bowel management. J Pediatr Surg. 1987 Mar;22(3):271-3. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(87)80345-7.
- Background: PubMed 9221856Briel JW, Schouten WR, Vlot EA, Smits S, van Kessel I. Clinical value of colonic irrigation in patients with continence disturbances. Dis Colon Rectum. 1997 Jul;40(7):802-5. doi: 10.1007/BF02055436.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No planned analysis other than current study
Related trials for Constipation - Functional
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
This is a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter, Parallel-group Study of the Efficacy and Safety of 2 Weight-based Treatment Groups of Plecanatide Versus Placebo in Children and Adolescent Participants 6 to Less Than 18 Years of Age With FC
Functional Constipation (FC)
Not yet recruitingPhase 3
Rifaximin Treatment in Bloating Predominant Functional Bowel Disorders
Bloating, Rifaximin
Recruiting
Effects of Connective Tissue Massage Plus Biofeedback for Dyssynergic Defecation
Dyssynergic Defecation
RecruitingObservational study
Relationship Between Interoception and Postural Control in Constipation-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Constipation, Irritable Bowel Disease
RecruitingPhase 2
A Study of Brenipatide (LY3537031) in Participants With Irritable Bowel Syndrome-Constipation (IBS-C)
Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Constipation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Alison Hainsworth, FRCS principal investigator
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Rectal Irrigation in people with Constipation - Functional and Constipation, run by Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 11 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Patient Assessment of Constipation - Quality of Life questionnaire (PAC-QOL) (time frame: At baseline and after three months after using rectal irrigation). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06100055, which also lists 26 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Oct 2026.