Literature DB >> 12352229

Artificial anal sphincter: complications and functional results of a large personal series.

Jose M Devesa1, Antonio Rey, Pedro L Hervas, Kamal S Halawa, Itziar Larrañaga, Laura Svidler, Victor Abraira, Alfonso Muriel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the technique of artificial sphincter for fecal incontinence, with its complications and risk factors, the functional results, and which variables derived from demographic data, preoperative studies, device characteristics, technical details, perioperative findings, and complications could influence the outcome.
METHODS: The Acticon Neosphincter was implanted in 53 patients (35 females), median age 46 years, with total anal incontinence not amenable to sphincter repair or after failed sphincteroplasty. In females with associated rectocele, this was synchronously corrected. Six (11 percent) patients already had a colostomy, but no proximal stoma was constructed at the time of implantation. Causes of incontinence were congenital, 13; iatrogenic, 13; obstetric, 10; neurogenic, 9; trauma, 4; idiopathic, 2; and perineal colostomy, 2. Physiologic testing before and after the operation and preoperative endosonography were done when they were available. Quality of life was assessed in 25 patients. Mean follow-up was 26.5 (range, 7-55) months.
RESULTS: Perioperative events occurred in 14 (26 percent) patients: abnormal bleeding, 7; vaginal perforation, 4; rectal perforation without apparent contamination, 2; and unobserved urethral perforation, 1. Early complications were mainly related to sepsis in 8 (15 percent) patients and wound complication in 8 (15 percent). Sepsis could not be statistically associated with any of the variables studied here. Wound separation was associated with fibrosis (p = 0.003) and tension of the wound (p = 0.001). Late complications were: cuff and/or pump erosion, 9 (18 percent) patients; infection, 3 (6 percent); impaction, 11 (22 percent); pain, 4 (8 percent); and mechanical failures, 2 (4 percent). None of those complications showed a statistical association with any of the variable studied here. There were 10 (19 percent) definitive explants caused by septic or skin complications. Only 26 (60 percent) of 43 patients with the device in action use the pump (patients' decision). Normal continence was achieved in 65 percent of patients and continence to solid stool in 98 percent. The Cleveland Clinic score of incontinence (0-20, maximal incontinence) changed from 17 +/- 3 preoperatively to 4 +/- 3 postoperatively (p = 0.000). An early complication of the perianal wound influenced the functional results: postimplant score > 4 < or = 4 (p = 0.009). Resting and squeeze pressures changed significantly after activation (p = 0.000). Quality of life measured in four subscales changed significantly in all the subscales (p = 0.000).
CONCLUSIONS: The artificial anal sphincter restores continence to solid stool in almost all severely incontinent patients, two-thirds of whom achieve practically normal continence. Quality of life improves significantly. Infection and skin erosion are the cause of the majority of explants. No predictable factors of functional success could be found in this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12352229     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-6382-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  21 in total

Review 1.  Novel surgical approaches to fecal incontinence: neurostimulation and artificial anal sphincter.

Authors:  Xiaotuan Zhao; Pankaj J Pasricha
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2003-10

Review 2.  Challenges faced in the clinical application of artificial anal sphincters.

Authors:  Ming-hui Wang; Ying Zhou; Shuang Zhao; Yun Luo
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 3.  Investigation and treatment of faecal incontinence.

Authors:  S Maslekar; A Gardiner; C Maklin; G S Duthie
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.401

Review 4.  Fecal incontinence: an up-to-date critical overview of surgical treatment options.

Authors:  Christophe Müller; Orlin Belyaev; Thomas Deska; Ansgar Chromik; Dirk Weyhe; Waldemar Uhl
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2005-08-12       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 5.  [Dynamic graciloplasty vs artificial bowel sphincter in the management of severe fecal incontinence].

Authors:  O Ruthmann; A Fischer; U T Hopt; H J Schrag
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 6.  Neosphincter surgery for fecal incontinence: a critical and unbiased review of the relevant literature.

Authors:  Orlin Belyaev; Christophe Müller; Waldemar Uhl
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.549

7.  Infection rates in a large investigational trial of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Steven D Wexner; Tracy Hull; Yair Edden; John A Coller; Ghislain Devroede; Richard McCallum; Miranda Chan; Jennifer M Ayscue; Abbas S Shobeiri; David Margolin; Michael England; Howard Kaufman; William J Snape; Ece Mutlu; Heidi Chua; Paul Pettit; Deborah Nagle; Robert D Madoff; Darin R Lerew; Anders Mellgren
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 8.  Anal incontinence-sphincter ani repair: indications, techniques, outcome.

Authors:  Susan Galandiuk; Leslie A Roth; Quincy J Greene
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 3.445

9.  The current status of the Acticon Neosphincter.

Authors:  Sharon G Gregorcyk
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2005-02

10.  Clinical response and sustainability of treatment with temperature-controlled radiofrequency energy (Secca) in patients with faecal incontinence: 3 years follow-up.

Authors:  T J Lam; A P Visscher; M M Meurs-Szojda; R J F Felt-Bersma
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.