Home electrical stimulation for women with fecal incontinence: a preliminary randomized controlled trial

An evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of Gatekeeper™ intersphincteric implants for passive faecal incontinence

Background

Implantation of Gatekeeper™ prostheses presents an option for the treatment of passive faecal incontinence (FI). Whilst preliminary results are encouraging, long-term data regarding its sustained benefit are limited. The aim of this study was to assess and evaluate the long-term clinical function and quality of life of patients with passive faecal incontinence who were treated with Gatekeeper™ prostheses.

Methods

This was a single centre, single surgeon retrospective study of prospectively collected clinical data in patients with FI treated between June 2012 and May 2019. Patients with passive FI with symptoms refractory to conservative treatment and endoanal ultrasonography showing intact or disrupted internal anal sphincter were included. Formal clinical and quality of life assessments were carried out using the St. Mark’s Incontinence Score (SMIS) and Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQoL) questionnaires at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and then annually. Endoanal ultrasonography was performed both before and after surgery.

Results

Forty patients (14 males, 26 females) with a median age of 62.5 (range 33–80) years were treated with the Gatekeeper™ implant. The majority of patients (87.5%) received six implants. There were no peri or post-operative complications. Prosthesis migration was observed in 12.5% patients. The median follow-up duration was 5 years (interquartile range (IQR) 3.25–6.00 years). A sustained improvement in median SMIS and FIQoL scores from baseline to follow-up was noted. Significant differences were observed between the median baseline SMIS score and last follow-up score of 16.00 (IQR 15.00–16.75) to 7.00 (IQR 5.00–8.00) respectively (p < 0.001), a 56.25% decrease. The overall median FIQoL score showed a significant improvement from 7.95 (IQR 7.13–9.48) to 13.15 (IQR 12.00–13.98) (p < 0.001) a 65.40% increase.

Conclusions

Gatekeeper™ implantation is a safe approach to treating passive FI and is minimally invasive, reproducible and has minimal complications. Long-term sustained clinical improvement is achievable beyond 5 years. Careful patient selection is paramount, as is consistency of technique and follow-up protocol.

Randomized controlled trial of home biofeedback therapy versus office biofeedback therapy for fecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Biofeedback therapy is useful for treatment of fecal incontinence (FI), but is not widely available and labor intensive. We investigated if home biofeedback therapy (HBT) is non-inferior to office biofeedback therapy (OBT).

METHODS

Patients with FI (≥1 episode/week) were randomized to HBT or OBT for 6 weeks. HBT was performed daily using novel device that provided resistance training and electrical stimulation with voice-guided instructions. OBT consisted of six weekly sessions. Both methods involved anal strength, endurance, and coordination training. Primary outcome was change in weekly FI episodes. FI improvement was assessed with stool diaries, validated instruments (FISI, FISS, and ICIQ-B), and anorectal manometry using intention-to-treat analysis.

KEY RESULTS

Thirty (F/M = 26/4) FI patients (20 in HBT, 10 in OBT) participated. Weekly FI episodes decreased significantly after HBT (Δ ± 95% confidence interval: 4.7 ± 1.8, compared with baseline, p = 0.003) and OBT (3.7 ± 1.6, p = 0.0003) and HBT was non-inferior to OBT (p = 0.2). The FISI and FISS scores improved significantly in HBT group (p < 0.02). Bowel pattern, bowel control, and quality of life (QOL) domains (ICIQ-B) improved significantly in HBT arm (p < 0.023). Resting and maximum squeeze sphincter pressures significantly improved in both HBT and OBT groups and sustained squeeze pressure in HBT, without group differences.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Home biofeedback therapy is non-inferior to OBT for FI treatment. Home biofeedback is safe, effective, improves QOL, and through increased access could facilitate improved management of FI.

Vaginal Electrical Stimulation for Postpartum Neuromuscular Recovery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare 3-month postpartum anal incontinence symptoms in women who sustain obstetric anal sphincter injuries and begin immediate vaginal electrical stimulation versus sham therapy.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, women who sustained obstetric anal sphincter injuries were randomized to receive self-administered vaginal electrical stimulation using a commercial device or sham therapy with an identical device. Anal incontinence symptom severity was assessed at 1 week (baseline) and again at 13 weeks postpartum using the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index. The primary outcome was anal incontinence symptom severity measured by the total Fecal Incontinence Severity Index score at 13 weeks postpartum.

RESULTS

Between February 2016 and September 2018, 48 women completed a 13-week follow-up. At 13 weeks postpartum, median Fecal Incontinence Severity Index scores were higher (more severe) in the vaginal electrical stimulation group (12; interquartile range, 0-23) than in the sham group (4; interquartile range, 0-10) (P = 0.04). Unlike the vaginal electrical stimulation group, the improvement in Fecal Incontinence Severity Index scores in the sham group (vaginal electrical stimulation: 12 [interquartile range, 8-22] to 12 [interquartile range, 0-23] [P = 0.12] vs sham: 12 [interquartile range, 6-18] to 4.0 [interquartile range, 0-11] [P < 0.001]) met the threshold for clinical significance based on the minimum important difference of the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index.

CONCLUSION

At 13 weeks postpartum, women who underwent postpartum vaginal electrical stimulation reported more anal incontinence symptoms compared with those receiving sham therapy. Vaginal electrical stimulation after obstetric anal sphincter injury was not beneficial in reducing anal incontinence symptoms and may impede recovery.

Physiotherapy for Prevention and Treatment of Fecal Incontinence in Women-Systematic Review of Methods

Fecal incontinence (FI) affects approximately 0.25-6% of the population, both men and women. The most common causes of FI are damage to/weakness of the anal sphincter muscle and/or pelvic floor muscles, as well as neurological changes in the central or peripheral nervous system. The purpose of this study is to report the results of a systematic review of the possibilities and effectiveness of physiotherapy techniques for the prevention and treatment of FI in women. For this purpose, the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for 2000-2020. A total of 22 publications qualified for detailed analysis. The studies showed that biofeedback (BF), anal sphincter muscle exercises, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), and electrostimulation (ES) are effective in relieving FI symptoms, as reflected in the International Continence Society recommendations (BF: level A; PFMT and ES: level B). Research has confirmed that physiotherapy, by improving muscle strength, endurance, and anal sensation, is beneficial in the prevention of FI, both as an independent method of conservative treatment or in pre/post-surgery treatment. Moreover, it can significantly improve the quality of life of patients. In conclusion, physiotherapy (in particular, BF, PFMT, or ES, as effective methods) should be one of the key elements in the comprehensive therapy of patients with FI.

Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is a disabling condition affecting up to 20% of women.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated fecal incontinence assessment in both inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients to propose a diagnostic approach for inflammatory bowel disease trials.

METHODS

We searched on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library for all studies on adult inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients reporting data on fecal incontinence assessment from January 2009 to December 2019.

RESULTS

In total, 328 studies were included; 306 studies enrolled non-inflammatory bowel disease patients and 22 studies enrolled inflammatory bowel disease patients. In non-inflammatory bowel disease trials the most used tools were the Wexner score, fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire, Vaizey score and fecal incontinence severity index (in 187, 91, 62 and 33 studies). Anal manometry was adopted in 41.2% and endoanal ultrasonography in 34.0% of the studies. In 142 studies (46.4%) fecal incontinence evaluation was performed with a single instrument, while in 64 (20.9%) and 100 (32.7%) studies two or more instruments were used. In inflammatory bowel disease studies the Wexner score, Vaizey score and inflammatory bowel disease quality of life questionnaire were the most commonly adopted tools (in five (22.7%), five (22.7%) and four (18.2%) studies). Anal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography were performed in 45.4% and 18.2% of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on prior validation and experience, we propose to use the Wexner score as the first step for fecal incontinence assessment in inflammatory bowel disease trials. Anal manometry and/or endoanal ultrasonography should be taken into account in the case of positive questionnaires.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing treatments for faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Although numerous treatments exist for fecal incontinence (FI), no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy. The aim was to review the literature and to compare the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of treatments available for FI.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A systematic literature review was performed, from inception to May 2018, of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Cochrane Library. The search terms used were "faecal incontinence" and "treatment". Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for FI were considered. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method.

RESULT

Forty-seven RCTs were included comparing 37 treatments and reporting on 3748 participants. No treatment ranked best or worst with high probability for any outcome of interest. No significant difference was identified between treatments for frequency of FI per week, or in changing the resting pressure, maximum resting pressure, squeeze pressure, and maximum squeeze pressure. Radiofrequency resulted in more adverse events compared to placebo. Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and zinc-aluminium improved the fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire (FIQL) lifestyle, coping, and embarrassment domains compared to placebo. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (TPTNS) improved the FIQL embarrassment domain compared to placebo. Autologous myoblasts and zinc-aluminium improved the FIQL depression domain compared to placebo. SNS, artificial bowel sphincter (ABS), and zinc-aluminium significantly improved incontinence scores compared to placebo. Injection of non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid/dextranomer (NASHA/Dx) resulted in more patients with ≥50% reduction in FI episodes compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

SNS, ABS, TPTNS, NASHA/Dx, zinc-aluminium, and autologous myoblasts resulted in isolated improvements in specific outcomes of interest. No difference was identified in incontinence episodes, no treatment ranked best persistently or persistently improved outcomes, and many included treatments did not significantly benefit patients compared to placebo. Large multicentre RCTs with long-term follow-up and standardized inclusion criteria and outcome measures are needed.

A systematic review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for faecal incontinence in adults

AIM

To perform a review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for faecal incontinence (FI) in adults.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify RCTs reporting on treatments for FI.

RESULTS

The review included 60 RCTs reporting on 4838 patients with a mean age ranging from 36.8 to 88 years. From the included RCTs, 32 did not identify a significant difference between the treatments compared. Contradictory results were identified in RCTs comparing percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham stimulation, biofeedback-pelvic floor muscle training (BF-PFMT) versus PFMT, and between bulking agents such as PTQ^TM versus Durasphere^®. In two separate RCTs, combination treatment of amplitude-modulated medium frequency stimulation and electromyography-biofeedback (EMG-BF), was noted to be superior to EMG-BF and low-frequency electrical stimulation alone. Combination of non-surgical treatments such as BF with sphincteroplasty significantly improved continence scores compared to sphincteroplasty alone. Surgical treatments were associated with higher rates of serious adverse events compared to non-surgical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence has not identified significant differences between treatments for FI, and where differences were identified, the results were contradictory between RCTs.

Outcomes of GatekeeperTM prosthesis implantation for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

The implantation of Gatekeeper ™ (GK) represents a new option for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI). The aim of this study was to analyze the postoperative morbidity associated with GK and to determine its clinical efficacy after at least 1 year of follow-up.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective and longitudinal study of patients with FI who were treated with GK at our institutions between January 2010 and December 2015. Patients with FI without sphincter lesions or with sphincter injuries < 120° and with low anterior resection syndrome were included. Postoperative complications, long-term adverse effects and migration were recorded. FI severity was assessed using the Vaizey score. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders according to the improvement of the Vaizey score (≥ than 50 and < 50%, respectively) during the first 6 months after implantation.

RESULTS

Forty-nine consecutive patients treated with GK between 2010 and 2015 were included (11 males and 38 females, mean age 63.3 years, SD 13.5). No postoperative and long-term complications were observed. Prosthesis migration was observed in 51% of patients. Twenty-three patients (48%) were classified as responders and 25 (52%) as non-responders. The mean Vaizey score at baseline, 6, 12 months and last visit post-surgery in the responder group was, respectively, 13.3 (SD 3.8), 4.3 (SD 2.1), 4.2 (SD 3.6) and 5.7 (SD 5.3). Significant differences were observed between the mean baseline Vaizey score and the mean 6, 12 and last follow-up Vaizey score values (p < 0.001). In long-term follow-up (2.7 years (SD 1.1)), responders maintained an improvement of more than 50% of the baseline Vaizey score. In the non-responder group the mean number of migrated prostheses was higher than in the responder group (2.4 SD 2.5 vs. 1.0 SD 1.6; p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

GK is a safe and effective procedure in more than 50% of the patients for at least 1 year after the implantation.

Fecal Incontinence: Epidemiology, Impact, and Treatment

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a chronic and debilitating condition that carries a significant health, economic, and social burden. FI has a considerable psychosocial and financial impact on patients and their families. A variety of treatment modalities are available for FI including behavioral and dietary modifications, pharmacotherapy, pelvic floor physical therapy, bulking agents, anal sphincteroplasty, sacral nerve stimulation, artificial sphincters, magnetic sphincters, posterior anal sling, and colostomy.