Literature DB >> 29159781

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

Loris Trenti1,2, Sebastiano Biondo3,4, Fernando Noguerales5, Jesus Nomdedeu6, Alba Coret6, Roland Scherer7, Domenico Fraccalvieri1,2, Riccardo Frago1,2, Esther Kreisler1,2.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bulking agents; Fecal incontinence; GatekeeperTM

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29159781     DOI: 10.1007/s10151-017-1723-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tech Coloproctol        ISSN: 1123-6337            Impact factor:   3.781


  21 in total

Review 1.  Management of faecal incontinence in adults: summary of NICE guidance.

Authors:  Christine Norton; Louise Thomas; Jennifer Hill
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-06-30

2.  Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems.

Authors:  C J Vaizey; E Carapeti; J A Cahill; M A Kamm
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Fecal Incontinence: Epidemiology, Impact, and Treatment.

Authors:  Katarzyna Bochenska; Anne-Marie Boller
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2016-09

4.  Prevalence, trends, and risk factors for fecal incontinence in United States adults, 2005-2010.

Authors:  Ivo Ditah; Pardha Devaki; Henry N Luma; Chobufo Ditah; Basile Njei; Charles Jaiyeoba; Augustine Salami; Calistus Ditah; Oforbuike Ewelukwa; Lawrence Szarka
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 5.  Midterm outcomes of injectable bulking agents for fecal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  K D Hong; J S Kim; W B Ji; J W Um
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.781

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

Authors:  Nira Cohen-Zubary; Rachel Gingold-Belfer; Inna Lambort; Nir Wasserberg; Haim Krissi; Sigal Levy; Yaron Niv; Ram Dickman
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women.

Authors:  Jennifer M Wu; Camille P Vaughan; Patricia S Goode; David T Redden; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Alayne D Markland
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Does incontinence severity correlate with quality of life? Prospective analysis of 502 consecutive patients.

Authors:  L Bordeianou; T Rockwood; N Baxter; A Lowry; A Mellgren; S Parker
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2007-06-30       Impact factor: 3.788

9.  Implantation of SphinKeeper(TM): a new artificial anal sphincter.

Authors:  C Ratto; L Donisi; F Litta; P Campennì; A Parello
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 3.781

10.  Long-term efficacy of NASHA Dx injection therapy for treatment of fecal incontinence.

Authors:  A Mellgren; K E Matzel; J Pollack; T Hull; M Bernstein; W Graf
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 3.598

View more
  6 in total

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

Authors:  S A A Jabbar; J Camilleri-Brennan
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 3.699

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

Authors:  Ferdinando D'Amico; Steven D Wexner; Carolynne J Vaizey; Célia Gouynou; Silvio Danese; Laurent Peyrin-Biroulet
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 3.  Surgical Treatment Alternatives to Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence: Injectables, Sphincter Repair, and Colostomy.

Authors:  Srinivas Joga Ivatury; Lauren R Wilson; Ian M Paquette
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2021-01-28

Review 4.  Critical appraisal of international guidelines for the management of fecal incontinence in adults: is it possible to define what to do in different clinical scenarios?

Authors:  A Muñoz-Duyos; L Lagares-Tena; Y Ribas; J C Baanante; A Navarro-Luna
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 3.781

5.  Clinical effectiveness and safety of self-expandable implantable bulking agents for faecal incontinence: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lucia Gassner; Claudia Wild; Melanie Walter
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 2.847

6.  Efficacy of Sphinkeeper™ implant in treating faecal incontinence.

Authors:  F Litta; A Parello; V De Simone; P Campennì; R Orefice; A A Marra; M Goglia; R Moroni; C Ratto
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 6.939

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.