A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of placement of the artificial bowel sphincter (Acticon Neosphincter) for the control of fecal incontinence

Faecal incontinence in adults

Faecal incontinence, which is defined by the unintentional loss of solid or liquid stool, has a worldwide prevalence of ≤7% in community-dwelling adults and can markedly impair quality of life. Nonetheless, many patients might not volunteer the symptom owing to embarrassment. Bowel disturbances, particularly diarrhoea, anal sphincter trauma (obstetrical injury or previous surgery), rectal urgency and burden of chronic illness are the main risk factors for faecal incontinence; others include neurological disorders, inflammatory bowel disease and pelvic floor anatomical disturbances. Faecal incontinence is classified by its type (urge, passive or combined), aetiology (anorectal disturbance, bowel symptoms or both) and severity, which is derived from the frequency, volume, consistency and nature (urge or passive) of stool leakage. Guided by the clinical features, diagnostic tests and therapies are implemented stepwise. When simple measures (for example, bowel modifiers such as fibre supplements, laxatives and anti-diarrhoeal agents) fail, anorectal manometry and other tests (endoanal imaging, defecography, rectal compliance and sensation, and anal neurophysiological tests) are performed as necessary. Non-surgical options (diet and lifestyle modification, behavioural measures, including biofeedback therapy, pharmacotherapy for constipation or diarrhoea, and anal or vaginal barrier devices) are often effective, especially in patients with mild faecal incontinence. Thereafter, perianal bulking agents, sacral neuromodulation and other surgeries may be considered when necessary.

Surgical Treatment Alternatives to Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence: Injectables, Sphincter Repair, and Colostomy

Fecal incontinence is a prevalent health problem that affects over 20% of healthy women. Many surgical treatment options exist for fecal incontinence after attempts at non-operative management. In this article, the authors discuss surgical treatment options for fecal incontinence other than sacral neuromodulation.

Japanese Practice Guidelines for Fecal Incontinence Part 3 -Surgical Treatment for Fecal Incontinence, Fecal Incontinence in a Special Conditions- English Version

In Japan, the surgical treatment for fecal incontinence (FI) can be performed using minimally invasive surgery, such as anal sphincteroplasty and sacral neuromodulation (SNM), as well as antegrade continence enema (ACE), graciloplasty, and stoma construction. In addition, currently, several other procedures, including biomaterial injection therapy, artificial bowel sphincter (ABS), and magnetic anal sphincter (MAS), are unavailable in Japan but are performed in Western countries. The evidence level of surgical treatment for FI is generally low, except for novel procedures, such as SNM, which was covered by health insurance in Japan since 2014. Although the surgical treatment algorithm for FI has been chronologically modified, it should be sequentially selected, starting from the most minimally invasive procedure, as FI is a benign condition. Injuries to the neural system or spinal cord often cause disorders of the sensory and motor nerves that innervate the anus, rectum, and pelvic floor, leading to the difficulty in controlling bowel movement or FI and/or constipation. FI and constipation are closely associated; when one improves, the other tends to deteriorate. Patients with severe cognitive impairment may present with active soiling, referred to as "incontinence" episodes that occur as a consequence of abnormal behavior, and may also experience passive soiling.

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.

Regenerative medicine as a therapeutic option for fecal incontinence: a systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is the uncontrollable loss of stool and has a prevalence of around 7-15%. This condition has serious implications for patients' quality of life. Current treatment options show unsatisfactory results. A novel treatment option is therefore needed.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to perform a quality assessment and to give a critical overview of the current research available on regenerative medicine as a treatment for fecal incontinence.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic search strategy was applied in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cinahl from inception until March of 2018. Studies were found relevant when the animals or patients in the studied group had objectively determined or induced fecal incontinence, and the intervention must have used any kind of cells, stem cells, or biocompatible material, with or without the use of trophic factors. Studies were screened on title and consecutively on abstract for relevance by 2 independent investigators. The risk of bias of preclinical studies was assessed using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation risk of bias tool for animal studies, and for clinical studies the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used.

RESULTS

In all, 34 preclinical studies and 5 clinical studies were included. Animal species, type of anal sphincter injury, intervention, and outcome parameters were heterogenous. Therefore, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of regenerative medicine to treat fecal incontinence could not be determined due to the high risk of bias and heterogenicity of the available preclinical and clinical studies. The findings of this systematic review may result in improved study design of future studies, which could help the translation of regenerative medicine to the clinic as an alternative to current treatments for fecal incontinence.

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.

Palpable abdominal mass and recurrent fecal incontinence due to failure of artificial bowel sphincter

Artificial bowel sphincters (ABS), specifically the Acticon Neosphincter, have been used to treat fecal incontinence (FI) since the early 2000s. This report and literature review focuses on possible device malfunctions of previously placed ABS for FI. We present a case of device malfunction in a patient with FI who had a previously placed ABS, review relevant literature, and discuss outcomes of ABS placement with possible device malfunctions.

Challenges faced in the clinical application of artificial anal sphincters

Fecal incontinence is an unresolved problem, which has a serious effect on patients, both physically and psychologically. For patients with severe symptoms, treatment with an artificial anal sphincter could be a potential option to restore continence. Currently, the Acticon Neosphincter is the only device certified by the US Food and Drug Administration. In this paper, the clinical safety and efficacy of the Acticon Neosphincter are evaluated and discussed. Furthermore, some other key studies on artificial anal sphincters are presented and summarized. In particular, this paper highlights that the crucial problem in this technology is to maintain long-term biomechanical compatibility between implants and surrounding tissues. Compatibility is affected by changes in both the morphology and mechanical properties of the tissues surrounding the implants. A new approach for enhancing the long-term biomechanical compatibility of implantable artificial sphincters is proposed based on the use of smart materials.

Systematic Review of Surgical Treatments for Fecal Incontinence

BACKGROUND

No systematic review has examined the collective randomized and nonrandomized evidence for fecal incontinence treatment effectiveness across the range of surgical treatments.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of surgical treatments for fecal incontinence in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as hand searches of systematic reviews, were used as data sources.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators screened abstracts for eligibility (surgical treatment of fecal incontinence in adults, published 1980-2015, randomized controlled trial or observational study with comparator; case series were included for adverse effects). Full-text articles were reviewed for patient-reported outcomes. We extracted data, assessed study risk of bias, and evaluated strength of evidence for each treatment-outcome combination.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical treatments for fecal incontinence were included interventions.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Fecal incontinence episodes/severity, quality of life, urgency, and pain were measured.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria (13 randomized trials and 9 observational trials); 53 case series were included for harms. Most patients were middle-aged women with mixed FI etiologies. Intervention and outcome heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Evidence was insufficient for all of the surgical comparisons. Few studies examined the same comparisons; no studies were high quality. Functional improvements varied; some authors excluded those patients with complications or lost to follow-up from analyses. Complications ranged from minor to major (infection, bowel obstruction, perforation, and fistula) and were most frequent after the artificial bowel sphincter (22%-100%). Major surgical complications often required reoperation; few required permanent colostomy.

LIMITATIONS

Most evidence is intermediate term, with small patient samples and substantial methodologic limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence was insufficient to support clinical or policy decisions for any surgical treatments for fecal incontinence in adults. More invasive surgical procedures had substantial complications. The lack of compliance with study reporting standards is a modifiable impediment in the field. Future studies should focus on longer-term outcomes and attempt to identify subgroups of adults who might benefit from specific procedures.

Outcomes of Reimplantation of the Artificial Bowel Sphincter

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of artificial bowel sphincter reimplantation for severe fecal incontinence remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of artificial bowel sphincter reimplantation versus implantation.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a single institution.

PATIENTS

Patients with severe incontinence who underwent de novo implantation and re-implantation between January 1998 and December 2012 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Complications, length of functional device time, success rates (functioning device at follow-up), patient demographics, comorbidities, etiology of incontinence, operative data, postoperative complications, and outcomes of initial implantation versus reimplantation were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients (mean age, 49.3 ± 13.5 years; 44 women) underwent implantation. Sixteen (28%) succeeded and 41 (72%) failed, requiring explantation; 17 of 41 patients underwent reimplantation; 5 had 2 reimplantations. There were 79 implantations and 50 explantations (63.3%) in total. Implantation and reimplantation procedures had similar lengths of operation, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and explantation rate. Most common reasons for device explantation were infection/erosion (27/50 (54%)) and malfunction (19/50 (38%)). Reasons for reimplantation included device malfunction/migration (17/22 (77.3%)) and/or infection/erosion (5/22 (22.7%)). Seven (41.2%) of 17 patients for whom reimplantation was attributed to noninfectious reasons had a functioning device, whereas only 1 (20.0%) of 5 who had reimplantation because of infection/erosion had a working device. At a median follow-up of 29.5 months (range, 1.0-215.0 months), 24 patients (42%) retained a functioning device (implantation = 16; reimplantation = 8). Success rates were not significantly different between initial implantation and reimplantation procedures (p = 0.755). There were no differences in the length of functional device time between implanted and reimplanted devices (p = 0.439).

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial bowel sphincter implantation has a high failure rate, requiring explantation in 72% of patients in this study. Reimplantation was often possible, with a success rate of 47%. Selected reimplantation for noninfectious complications had better outcomes than did reimplantation for septic causes. Short- and long-term outcomes are comparable to initial implantation.

Emerging surgical therapies for faecal incontinence

Faecal incontinence is a common condition and is associated with considerable morbidity and economic cost. The majority of patients are managed with conservative interventions. However, for those patients with severe or refractory incontinence, surgical treatment might be required. Over the past 20 years, numerous developments have been made in the surgical therapies available to treat such patients. These surgical therapies can be classified as techniques of neuromodulation, neosphincter creation (muscle or artificial) and injection therapy. Techniques of neuromodulation, particularly sacral nerve stimulation, have transformed the management of these patients with a minimally invasive procedure that offers good results and low morbidity. By contrast, neosphincter procedures are characterized by being more invasive and associated with considerable morbidity, although some patients will experience substantial improvements in their continence. Injection of bulking agents into the anal canal can improve symptoms and quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate incontinence, and the use of autologous myoblasts might be a future therapy. Further research and development is required not only in terms of the devices and procedures, but also to identify which patients are likely to benefit most from such interventions.

Current status: new technologies for the treatment of patients with fecal incontinence

Fecal incontinence is a frequent and debilitating condition that may result from a multitude of different causes. Treatment is often challenging and needs to be individualized. During the last several years, new technologies have been developed, and others are emerging from clinical trials to commercialization. Although their specific roles in the management of fecal incontinence have not yet been completely defined, surgeons have access to them and patients may request them. The purpose of this project is to put into perspective, for both the patient and the practitioner, the relative positions of new and emerging technologies in order to propose a treatment algorithm.

Current management of fecal incontinence: Choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes

The severity of fecal incontinence widely varies and can have dramatic devastating impacts on a person’s life. Fecal incontinence is common, though it is often under-reported by patients. In addition to standard treatment options, new treatments have been developed during the past decade to attempt to effectively treat fecal incontinence with minimal morbidity. Non-operative treatments include dietary modifications, medications, and biofeedback therapy. Currently used surgical treatments include repair (sphincteroplasty), stimulation (sacral nerve stimulation or posterior tibial nerve stimulation), replacement (artificial bowel sphincter or muscle transposition) and diversion (stoma formation). Newer augmentation treatments such as radiofrequency energy delivery and injectable materials, are minimally invasive tools that may be good options before proceeding to surgery in some patients with mild fecal incontinence. In general, more invasive surgical treatments are now reserved for moderate to severe fecal incontinence. Functional and quality of life related outcomes, as well as potential complications of the treatment must be considered and the treatment of fecal incontinence must be individualized to the patient. General indications, techniques, and outcomes profiles for the various treatments of fecal incontinence are discussed in detail. Choosing the most effective treatment for the individual patient is essential to achieve optimal outcomes in the treatment of fecal incontinence.

Experience with a new prosthetic anal sphincter in three coloproctological centres

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is a common and severely disabling disorder. For patients with severe fecal incontinence, surgery may prove to be the only adequate treatment option.

METHODS

This study reports on 43 patients that were treated with a prosthetic sphincter system between 2005 and 2009 in three coloproctological centres.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

complications, anal pressures before and after surgery, fecal continence score.

RESULTS

The new artificial sphincter system significantly improves continence but leads to some complications in clinical practice. After implantation of the device, continence improved significantly (Keller & Jostarndt continence score 2.6 to 14.3 (P < 0.01)). With the band activated, resting pressure improved significantly as compared to baseline (10.7 mmHg vs. 66.1 mm Hg, P < 0.01). The same holds for anal sphincter squeeze pressure (32.2 mmHg versus 85.9 mm Hg, P < 0.01). Complications occurred in 21 patients (48.8%): 10 surgical and 13 technical. Two patients were affected by both technical and surgical problems. The median time of the occurrence was 3 months postop. In five patients difficulties arose within the first postoperative month leading to explantation of the device in three patients. 90% of complications occurred in the first year.

CONCLUSIONS

The soft anal band of AMI (AAS), a new artificial anal sphincter, improves severe anal incontinence, but it must be regarded as a last treatment option to avoid a stoma.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-operative interventions (for example pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs) and surgical procedures. A surgical procedure may be aimed at correcting an obvious mechanical defect, or augmenting a functionally deficient but structurally intact sphincter complex.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aim was firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 6 March 2013), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (searched 6 March 2013), CENTRAL (2013, issue 1) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 6 March 2013) were undertaken. The British Journal of Surgery (1 January 1995 to 6 March 2013), Colorectal Diseases (1 January 2000 to 6 March 2013) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (1 January 1995 to 6 March 2013) were specifically handsearched. The proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland annual meetings held from 1999 to 2012 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other than surgery for rectal prolapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The three primary outcome measures were change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included with a total sample size of 264 participants. Two trials included a group managed non-surgically. One trial compared levatorplasty with anal plug electrostimulation and one compared an artificial bowel sphincter with best supportive care. The artificial bowel sphincter resulted in significant improvements in at least one primary outcome but the numbers were small. The other trial showed no difference in the primary outcome measures.Seven trials compared different surgical interventions. These included anterior levatorplasty versus postanal repair, anterior levatorplasty versus total pelvic floor repair, total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, end to end versus overlap sphincter repair, overlap repair with or without a defunctioning stoma or with or without biofeedback, and total pelvic floor repair versus repair plus internal sphincter plication and neosphincter formation versus total pelvic floor repair. Sacral nerve stimulation and injectables are considered in separate Cochrane reviews. Only one comparison had more than one trial (total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, 44 participants) and no trial showed any difference in primary outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review is striking for the lack of high quality randomised controlled trials on faecal incontinence surgery that have been carried out in the last 10 years. Those trials that have been carried out have focused on sacral neuromodulation and injectable bulking agents, both reported in separate reviews. The continued small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are still needed. However, it should be recognised that the optimal treatment regime may be a complex combination of various surgical and non-surgical therapies.

Biofeedback and/or sphincter exercises for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a particularly embarrassing and distressing condition with significant medical, social and economic implications. Anal sphincter exercises (pelvic floor muscle training) and biofeedback therapy have been used to treat the symptoms of people with faecal incontinence. However, standards of treatment are still lacking and the magnitude of alleged benefits has yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of biofeedback and/or anal sphincter exercises/pelvic floor muscle training for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 24 January 2012) which contains trials from searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and handsearching of conference proceedings; and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating biofeedback and/or anal sphincter exercises in adults with faecal incontinence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed the risk of bias of eligible trials and two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. A wide range of outcome measures were considered.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty one eligible studies were identified with a total of 1525 participants. About half of the trials had low risk of bias for randomisation and allocation concealment.One small trial showed that biofeedback plus exercises was better than exercises alone (RR for failing to achieve full continence 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94).One small trial showed that adding biofeedback to electrical stimulation was better than electrical stimulation alone (RR for failing to achieve full continence 0.47, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.65).The combined data of two trials showed that the number of people failing to achieve full continence was significantly lower when electrical stimulation was added to biofeedback compared against biofeedback alone (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78).Sacral nerve stimulation was better than conservative management which included biofeedback and PFMT (at 12 months the incontinence episodes were significantly fewer with sacral nerve stimulation (MD 6.30, 95% CI 2.26 to 10.34).There was not enough evidence as to whether there was a difference in outcome between any method of biofeedback or exercises. There are suggestions that rectal volume discrimination training improves continence more than sham training. Further conclusions are not warranted from the available data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited number of identified trials together with methodological weaknesses of many do not allow a definitive assessment of the role of anal sphincter exercises and biofeedback therapy in the management of people with faecal incontinence. We found some evidence that biofeedback and electrical stimulation may enhance the outcome of treatment compared to electrical stimulation alone or exercises alone. Exercises appear to be less effective than an implanted sacral nerve stimulator. While there is a suggestion that some elements of biofeedback therapy and sphincter exercises may have a therapeutic effect, this is not certain. Larger well-designed trials are needed to enable safe conclusions.

The artificial bowel sphincter: a single institution experience over a decade

OBJECTIVE

A report on the long-term results of a consecutive series of patients implanted with the Acticon Neosphincter.

METHOD

Data were reviewed from a prospective database. From May 1996 to Jan 2010, 52 patients (46 women), mean age 51.5 ± 14.8 years, with severe fecal incontinence for a mean of 10.6 ± 10.5 years, were implanted with 85 devices. All patients had failed conservative management, including 13 with unsuccessful prior surgical treatments. Indications for implantation were sphincter destruction (45), pudendal neuropathy (12), congenital malformation (7), and perineal colostomy (4). Preoperative assessment included anal endosonography, anorectal manometry, and electrophysiologic testing. Incontinence (Wexner) and Quality of Life scores were recorded prior to the procedure and at each follow-up visit, together with annual anal physiology assessments. Cumulative risks of device revision and explantation were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 64.3 ± 46.5 months (range, 2-169); 26 patients (50%) required revisions after a mean of 57.7 ± 35.0 months, with 73.1% due to a leaking cuff from a microperforation; 14 patients (26.9%) required definitive explantation after a mean of 14.6 ± 7.9 months, with the majority (42.9%) due to infection; and 9 patients were lost to follow-up. In 35 patients (67.3%) with an activated device, there were significant improvements in both median Wexner (P < 0.0001) and Quality-of-life scores (P = 0.0286). There was a significant difference between preoperative resting anal pressures and closed pressures at activation (P < 0.0001) and latest follow-up (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

With careful patient selection, meticulous surgical technique, and dedicated surveillance, favorable long-term results can be achieved with acceptable rates of revision and explantation.

The magnetic anal sphincter versus the artificial bowel sphincter: a comparison of 2 treatments for fecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is a debilitating ailment, and surgery offers the only recourse for the patients in whom conservative treatment fails.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to report the first matched comparison between patients implanted with the magnetic anal sphincter and the artificial bowel sphincter.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

From December 2008 to June 2010, 10 female patients, median age 64.5 years (range, 42-76), with severe fecal incontinence for a median of 7.5 years (range, 1-40), were implanted with the magnetic anal sphincter. Ten female patients implanted with the artificial bowel sphincter were identified. Both groups were matched for age, etiology, duration of incontinence, and preoperative functional scores.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes measures included length of hospitalization, complications, and changes in functional scores (anorectal physiology, incontinence, and quality of life).

RESULTS

Patients with the magnetic anal sphincter had a shorter median operative time (62 vs 97.5 min, P = .0273), length of hospitalization(4.5 vs 10 days, P < .001), and follow-up duration (8 vs 22.5 mo, P = .0068), without a statistically significant difference in 30-day complications (4 vs 2, P = .628) and revision/explantation (1 vs 4, P = .830). Both groups achieved significant improvements in preoperative incontinence (P < .0002) and quality-of-life scores (P < .009). In a comparison of baseline resting anal pressures, patients with the artificial bowel sphincter had significantly higher pressures with the cuff inflated (P = .0082), and those with the magnetic anal sphincter had a significant increase as well (P = .0469). At the latest review, both groups had similar quality-of-life scores (P = .374); patients with the artificial bowel sphincter had higher (median) closed-cuff anal pressures compared with the anal resting pressure of those with a magnetic anal sphincter (89 vs 58.5 cmH2O, P = .0147), together with more constipation (4 vs 1, P = .830) and a trend toward better incontinence scores (P = .0625).

LIMITATIONS

This was a nonrandomized study with small patient numbers.

CONCLUSION

In the short term, the magnetic anal sphincter is as effective as the artificial bowel sphincter in restoring continence and quality of life.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-operative interventions (e.g. pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs) and surgical procedures. A surgical procedure may be aimed at correcting an obvious mechanical defect, or augmenting a functionally deficient but structurally intact sphincter complex.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aim was firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 26 November 2009), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (searched 26 November 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 30 June 2009) were undertaken. The British Journal of Surgery (1 January 1995 to 30 June 2009) Colorectal Diseases (1 January 2000 to 30 June 2009) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (1 January 1995 to 30 June 2009) were specifically handsearched. The proceedings of the UK Association of Coloproctology meeting held from 1999 to 2009 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other than surgery for rectal prolapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The three primary outcome measures were: change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included with a total sample size of 440 participants. Two trials included a group managed non-surgically. One trial compared levator with anal plug electrostimulation and one compared artificial bowel sphincter with best supportive care. The artificial bowel sphincter resulted in significant improvements in at least one primary outcome but numbers were small. The other trial showed no difference in primary outcome measures.Eleven trials compared different surgical interventions. These included anterior levatorplasty versus postanal repair, anterior levatorplasty versus total pelvic floor repair, total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, end to end versus overlap sphincter repair, overlap repair with or without a defunctioning stoma or with or without biofeedback, injection of silicone, hydrogel, physiological saline, carbon beads or collagen bulking agents, total pelvic floor repair versus repair plus internal sphincter plication and neosphincter formation versus total pelvic floor repair. Sacral nerve stimulation and injectables are also considered in separate Cochrane reviews. Only one comparison had more than one trial (total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, 44 participants) and no trial showed any difference in primary outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite more studies being included in this update, the continued small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses continue to limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are still needed. However, it should be recognised that the optimal treatment regime may be a complex combination of various surgical and non-surgical therapies.

Fecal incontinence

Fecal incontinence is a devastating problem for those afflicted. It can lead to embarrassment and social isolation. Treating the problem begins with a thorough history and physical examination. Further testing (such as anal physiology testing or anal endosonography) depends on the examination and treatment plan. Conservative medical therapies (such as dietary manipulation, medication to slow the stool, and biofeedback) are usually tried first. Surgery includes sphincter repair, SECCA, artificial bowel sphincter, and stoma. New therapies continue to evolve with the intention of further improving quality of life for these afflicted patients.

Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: results of a 120-patient prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Sacral nerve stimulation has been approved for use in treating urinary incontinence in the United States since 1997, and in Europe for both urinary and fecal incontinence (FI) since 1994. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in a large population under the rigors of Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational protocol.

METHODS

Candidates for SNS who provided informed consent were enrolled in this Institutional Review Board-approved multicentered prospective trial. Patients showing > or =50% improvement during test stimulation received chronic implantation of the InterStim Therapy (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN). The primary efficacy objective was to demonstrate that > or =50% of subjects would achieve therapeutic success, defined as > or =50% reduction of incontinent episodes per week at 12 months compared with baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients underwent test stimulation with a 90% success rate, and 120 (110 females) of a mean age of 60.5 years and a mean duration of FI of 6.8 years received chronic implantation. Mean follow-up was 28 (range, 2.2-69.5) months. At 12 months, 83% of subjects achieved therapeutic success (95% confidence interval: 74%-90%; P < 0.0001), and 41% achieved 100% continence. Therapeutic success was 85% at 24 months. Incontinent episodes decreased from a mean of 9.4 per week at baseline to 1.9 at 12 months and 2.9 at 2 years. There were no reported unanticipated adverse device effects associated with InterStim Therapy.

CONCLUSION

Sacral nerve stimulation using InterStim Therapy is a safe and effective treatment for patients with FI.

Factors associated with failure of the artificial bowel sphincter: a study of over 50 cases from Cleveland Clinic Florida

PURPOSE

This study investigated the risk factors related to artificial bowel sphincter infection, complications, and failure.

METHOD

Complications may occur at any time after artificial bowel sphincter implantation. Early-stage complication is defined as any complications that occurred before artificial bowel sphincter activation, whereas late-stage complications are defined as any complications that occurred after device activation. Assessment of the outcomes of all artificial bowel sphincter operations included evaluation of factors related to patient demographics, operative procedures, and postoperative events.

RESULT

From January 1998 to May 2007, 51 artificial bowel sphincter implantations were performed in 47 patients (43; 84.3% female) with a mean age of 48.8 +/- 12.5 (range, 19-79) years and a mean incontinence score of 18 +/- 1.4 (range, 0-20). In 24 patients (54.5%), the etiology of incontinence was secondary to imperforate anus; 15 (24.2%) patients had obstetric injury or anorectal trauma. Twenty-three (41.2%) artificial bowel sphincter implantations became infected, 18 (35.3%) of which developed early-stage infection, whereas 5 (5.9%) had late-stage infection. One patient in the latter group had associated erosion, and two patient had fistula formation. Late-stage complications continued to increase with time. Multivariate analysis revealed that the time between artificial bowel sphincter implantation and first bowel movement and a history of perineal sepsis were independent risk factors for early-stage artificial bowel sphincter infection.

CONCLUSION

The time from implantation to first bowel movement and history of perineal infection were risk factors for early-stage artificial bowel sphincter infection and failure. Late-stage failures were more often the result of device malfunction and indicated the need for mechanical refinement.

Surgery and sacral nerve stimulation for constipation and fecal incontinence

Fecal continence is a complex bodily function, which requires the interplay of sensation, rectal capacity, and anal neuromuscular function. Fecal incontinence affects approximately 2% of the population and has a prevalence of 15% in elderly patients. Constipation is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders. The variety of symptoms and risk factors suggest a multifactorial origin. Before any invasive intervention, the surgeon should have a thorough understanding of the etiology of these conditions. Appropriate medical management can improve symptoms in the majority of patients. Surgery is indicated when all medical possibilities are exhausted. This review discusses the most used surgical procedures emphasizing the latest experiences. Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a promising option for patients with fecal incontinence and constipation. The procedure affords patients improved continence and quality of life. The mechanism of action is still poorly understood. This treatment has been used before in other more invasive surgical procedures or even after their failure to improve patients' symptoms and avoid a definitive stoma. Before any invasive intervention, the surgeon should have a thorough understanding of the etiology of these conditions. Appropriate medical management can improve symptoms in the majority of patients. Surgery is indicated when all medical possibilities are exhausted. This review discusses the most used surgical procedures emphasizing the latest experiences. Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a promising option for patients with fecal incontinence and constipation. The procedure affords patients improved continence and quality of life. The mechanism of action is still poorly understood. This treatment has been used before in other more invasive surgical procedures or even after their failure to improve patients' symptoms and avoid a definitive stoma.

Surgical treatment of patients with constipation and fecal incontinence

Patients with constipation and fecal incontinence usually come to the attention of the surgeon when conservative measures have failed to alleviate sufficiently severe symptoms. Following detailed clinical and physiologic assessment, the surgeon should tailor the procedure to specific underlying physiologic abnormalities to restore function. This article describes the rationale, indications (including patient selection), results, and current position controversies of surgical procedures for constipation and fecal incontinence, dividing these into those regarded as historical, contemporary, or evolving. Reported surgical outcome data must be interpreted with caution because for most studies the evidence is of low quality, making comparison of different procedures problematic and emphasizing the need for better designed and conducted clinical trials.

Surgical strategies for faecal incontinence--a decision analysis between dynamic graciloplasty, artificial bowel sphincter and end stoma

BACKGROUND

Artificial bowel sphincter (ABS) and dynamic graciloplasty (DG) are surgical treatments for faecal incontinence (FI). FI may affect quality of life (QOL) so severely that patients are often willing to consider a permanent end stoma (ES). It is unclear which is the more cost-effective strategy.

METHOD

Probability estimates for patients with FI were obtained from published data (ABS, n = 319; DG, n = 301), supplemented by expert opinion. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from each strategy. Factors considered were the risk of failure of the primary and redo operation and the consequent risk of permanent stoma. Results were assessed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Over the 5-year time horizon, ES gave a QALY gain of 3.45 for 16,280 pounds sterling, giving an ICER of 4719 pounds sterling/QALY. ABS produced a gain of 4.38 QALYs for 23,569 pounds sterling, giving an ICER of 5387 pounds sterling/QALY. DG produced a gain of 4.00 QALYs for 25,035 pounds sterling, giving an ICER of 6257 pounds sterling/QALY. With the willingness-to-pay threshold set at 30,000 pounds sterling/QALY, ES was the most cost-effective intervention. The ABS was most cost-effective after 10 years.

CONCLUSION

All three procedures were found to be cost-effective. The ES was most cost-effective over 5 years, while the ABS was most cost-effective in excess of 10. DG maybe considered as an alternative in specialist centres.

Evolving therapy for fecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is common and can be socially debilitating. Nonoperative management of fecal incontinence includes dietary modification, antidiarrheal medication, and biofeedback. The traditional surgical approach is sphincteroplasty if there is a defect of the external sphincter. Innovative treatment modalities have included sacral nerve stimulation, injectable implants, dynamic graciloplasty, and artificial bowel sphincter.

DISCUSSION

This review was designed to assess the various surgical options available for fecal incontinence and critically evaluate the evidence behind these procedures. The algorithm in the surgical treatment of fecal incontinence is shifting. Injectable therapy and sacral nerve stimulation are likely to be the mainstay in future treatment of moderate and severe fecal incontinence, respectively. Sphincteroplasty is limited to a small group of patients with isolated defect of the external sphincter. A stoma, although effective, can be avoided in most cases.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-surgical interventions (e.g. pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs, sacral nerve stimulation) and surgical procedures. A surgical procedure may be aimed at correcting an obvious mechanical defect, or augmenting a functionally deficient but structurally intact sphincter complex or replace an absent/non-functioning sphincter.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aim was firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (31 January 2006), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group trials register (31 January 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2006, Issue 1), PubMed (1 January 1950 to 31 January 2006) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 31 January 2006) were undertaken. The British Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to May 2006) Colorectal Diseases (January 2000-May 2006) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to May 2006) were specifically handsearched. The proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meeting held from 1999 to 2006 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other than surgery for rectal prolapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The three primary outcome measures were: change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included with a total sample size of 264 participants. Two trials included a group managed non-surgically. One trial compared levatorplasty with anal plug stimulation, one compared artificial bowel sphincter with best supportive care; numbers were small in both trials. The artificial bowel sphincter insertion was followed by significant improvements in at least one primary outcome but with high rates of significant morbidity. Seven studies compared different surgical interventions. These included anterior levatorplasty versus postanal repair, anterior levatorplasty versus total pelvic floor repair, total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, end to end versus overlap sphincter repair, overlap repair with or without a defunctioning stoma or with or without biofeedback, total pelvic floor repair versus repair plus internal sphincter plication and neosphincter formation versus total pelvic floor repair. Only one comparison had more that one trial (total pelvic floor versus postanal repair-44 participants) and no comparison showed any statistically significant difference in primary outcome measures, with wide confidence intervals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite more studies being included in this update, the continued small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses continue to limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are still needed. However, it should be recognised that the optimal treatment regime may be a complex combination of various surgical and non-surgical therapies.

[Dynamic graciloplasty vs artificial bowel sphincter in the management of severe fecal incontinence]

Dynamic graciloplasty (DGP) and the Acticon Neosphincter (artificial bowel sphincter, ABS) are well-established therapeutic instruments in patients with severe fecal incontinence. However, the success rates in the literature must be interpreted with caution. The report presented here presents firstly a critical analysis of 1510 patients in 52 studies (29 DGP vs 23 ABS). The evidence of these studies was assessed using the Oxford EBM criteria. All data were statistically analysed. Up to 94% of the studies analysed show EBM levels of only >3b. Both procedures show significant improvements in postoperative continence scores (p<0.001) and a significant advantage of ABS over DGP. Nevertheless, they are associated with a high incidence of morbidity in the long term (infection rate ABS vs DGP 21.74% vs 35.1%, revision rate ABS vs DGP 37.53% vs 40.64%, and ABS explantation rates of 30%). Presently no therapeutic recommendation can be expressed based on the few data available. Furthermore, therapy should be performed in specialized centers and patients should be given a realistic picture of the critical outcome of both surgical techniques.

Neosphincter surgery for fecal incontinence: a critical and unbiased review of the relevant literature

Up until about 15 years ago the only realistic option for end-stage fecal incontinence was the creation of a permanent stoma. There have since been several developments. Dynamic graciloplasty (DGP) and artificial bowel sphincter (ABS) are well-established surgical techniques, which offer the patient a chance for continence restoration and improved quality of life; however, they are unfortunately associated with high morbidity and low success rates. Several trials have been done in an attempt to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of these methods and define their place in the second-line treatment of severe, refractory fecal incontinence. This review presents a critical and unbiased overview of the current status of neosphincter surgery according to the available data in the world literature.

Biofeedback and/or sphincter exercises for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a particularly embarrassing and distressing condition with significant medical, social and economic implications. Anal sphincter exercises and biofeedback therapy have been used to treat the symptoms of people with faecal incontinence. However, standards of treatment are still lacking and the magnitude of alleged benefits has yet to be established.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of biofeedback and/or anal sphincter exercises/pelvic floor muscle training for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 27 February 2006) and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials evaluating biofeedback and/or anal sphincter exercises in adults with faecal incontinence.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and two reviewers independently extracted data from included trials. A wide range of outcome measures were considered.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven eligible studies were identified with a total of 564 participants. In all but three trials methodological quality was poor or uncertain. No study reported a major difference in outcome between any method of biofeedback or exercises and any other method, or compared to other conservative management. There are suggestions that rectal volume discrimination training improves continence more than sham training and that anal biofeedback combined with exercises and electrical stimulation provides more short-term benefits than vaginal biofeedback and exercises for women with obstetric-related faecal incontinence. Further conclusions are not warranted from the available data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited number of identified trials together with their methodological weaknesses do not allow a definitive assessment of the possible role of anal sphincter exercises and biofeedback therapy in the management of people with faecal incontinence. We found no evidence of biofeedback or exercises enhancing the outcome of treatment compared to other conservative management methods. While there is a suggestion that some elements of biofeedback therapy and sphincter exercises may have a therapeutic effect, this is not certain. Larger well-designed trials are needed to enable safe conclusions.

Selecting an outcome measure for evaluating treatment in fecal incontinence

PURPOSE

Various outcome measures exist to evaluate treatment in fecal incontinence, including descriptive, severity (fecal incontinence scoring systems), and impact (quality-of-life questionnaires) and diagnostic measures. We studied associations between changes after treatment for a number of outcome measures and compared them to patients' subjective perception of relief.

METHODS

We analyzed data of 66 patients (92 percent female; mean age, 62 years) (Vaizey score, Wexner score, two impact scales, utility, resting pressure, and maximal incremental squeeze pressure) at baseline and after physiotherapy. In a standardized interview by phone, we asked patients to compare their situation before and after treatment. Correlations between changes in outcome measures were calculated. These changes were compared with patients' subjective perception.

RESULTS

There was a high correlation between the changes in the Vaizey and the Wexner scores (r = 0.94, P < 0.01). Changes in Vaizey and Wexner scores correlated moderately with changes in maximum incremental squeeze pressure (r = -0.29, -0.30, both P < 0.05). Changes in utility and resting pressure were not correlated with changes in any of the other measurements (all r values between -0.086 and 0.18). Average severity scores (Vaizey and Wexner) were 1 point lower for patients who rated their situation as worse or equal (62 percent), 4 points lower for patients who reported their situation to be better (21 percent), and 9 points lower in patients who rated their situation much better (17 percent) (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Severity measures are best related to patients' subjective perception of relief.