Middle-term Outcomes of Gatekeeper Implantation for Fecal Incontinence.


Journal

Diseases of the colon and rectum
ISSN: 1530-0358
Titre abrégé: Dis Colon Rectum
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372764

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 28 1 2020
medline: 17 7 2020
entrez: 28 1 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Intersphincteric injectable bulking agents are one of the current treatment options for fecal incontinence, failing behavioral and medical therapy. Gatekeeper showed promising short-term results, but long-term outcomes are unknown. The purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate a prospective cohort of fecal incontinence patients up to 36 months after implantation of Gatekeeper. This was a prospective clinical study. The study was conducted at a large university tertiary care hospital. Consecutive female patients were eligible if fecal incontinence onset was ≥6 months before the first visit and symptoms were refractory to standard conservative measures. All of the patients underwent implantation of 4 or 6 Gatekeeper prostheses. Three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography and high-resolution anorectal manometry were performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 and 3 months after implantation. The Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence score was calculated at baseline and 1, 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. Twenty patients (all women; median age, 59 y) were enrolled, and all implants were uneventful. Postoperative endoanal ultrasonography showed normal prosthesis localization in 16 patients (80%). At manometry, mean anal resting pressure significantly improved (57.8 ± 7.5 mm Hg; p = 0.0004). Mean preoperative Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence score was 12.4 ± 1.8, with significant improvements initially documented at 3 months (4.9 ± 1.5; p < 0.0001) and sustained up to 36 months (4.9 ± 1.7; p < 0.0001). Patients receiving only 4 (compared with 6) prostheses and those experiencing pudendal neuropathy (compared with those who did not) showed significantly higher Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence score values in the middle term. The study was limited by its small sample size and absence of quality-of-life data. Initial improvements after Gatekeeper implantation for fecal incontinence are sustained in the middle term. Accurate preoperative evaluation of coexistent clinical conditions that may negatively affect outcomes is recommended for patient selection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B109. RESULTADOS A MEDIANO PLAZO EN LA IMPLANTACIÓN DE GATEKEEPER PARA LA INCONTINENCIA FECAL: Los agentes de volumen inyectables interesfintéricos, son opciones actuales de tratamiento para la incontinencia fecal, ante fallas de terapias conductuales y médicas. Gatekeeper mostró resultados prometedores a corto plazo, pero resultados a largo plazo aún son desconocidos.Evaluar clínicamente una cohorte prospectiva de pacientes con incontinencia fecal, hasta 36 meses después de la implantación de Gatekeeper.Estudio clínico prospectivo.El estudio se realizó en un gran hospital universitario de atención terciaria.Fueron elegibles pacientes femeninas consecutivas, si el inicio de la incontinencia fecal, fue al menos 6 meses antes de la primera visita, y que los síntomas fueron refractarios a las medidas conservadoras estandarizadas.Todas las pacientes fueron sometidas a implantación de 4 o 6 prótesis Gatekeeper. Se realizó ecografía endoanal de 3D y manometría anorrectal de alta resolución, antes de la implantación y después a los 2 y 3 meses.Se calculó el puntaje de incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic al inicio, y a los 1, 3, 12, 24 y 36 meses después de la operación.Se inscribieron veinte pacientes (todas mujeres; con edad media de 59 años), y todos los implantes transcurrieron sin incidentes. La ecografía endoanal postoperatoria, mostró localización normal de la prótesis en 16 (80%) pacientes. A la manometría, la presión media de reposo anal, mejoró significativamente (57.8 ± 7.5 mmHg, p = 0.0004). La puntuación media preoperatoria de la incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic, fue de 12.35 ± 1.75, con mejoras significativas documentadas inicialmente a los 3 meses (4.9 ± 1.5, p <0.0001) y sostenidas hasta los 36 meses (4.9 ± 1.7, p <0.0001). Los pacientes que recibieron solo 4 prótesis (en comparación con 6) y que padecían neuropatía pudenda (en comparación con aquellas que no la padecían), mostraron valores de puntaje de Incontinencia Fecal de la Clínica Cleveland, significativamente más altos en el mediano plazo.El tamaño pequeño de la muestra y la ausencia de datos en calidad de vida.Las mejoras iniciales después de la implantación de Gatekeeper para la incontinencia fecal, se mantienen en el mediano plazo. Para la selección de pacientes, se recomienda una precisa evaluación preoperatoria de las condiciones clínicas coexistentes, que puedan afectar negativamente los resultados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B109.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Intersphincteric injectable bulking agents are one of the current treatment options for fecal incontinence, failing behavioral and medical therapy. Gatekeeper showed promising short-term results, but long-term outcomes are unknown.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate a prospective cohort of fecal incontinence patients up to 36 months after implantation of Gatekeeper.
DESIGN
This was a prospective clinical study.
SETTINGS
The study was conducted at a large university tertiary care hospital.
PATIENTS
Consecutive female patients were eligible if fecal incontinence onset was ≥6 months before the first visit and symptoms were refractory to standard conservative measures.
INTERVENTIONS
All of the patients underwent implantation of 4 or 6 Gatekeeper prostheses. Three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography and high-resolution anorectal manometry were performed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 and 3 months after implantation.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence score was calculated at baseline and 1, 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.
RESULTS
Twenty patients (all women; median age, 59 y) were enrolled, and all implants were uneventful. Postoperative endoanal ultrasonography showed normal prosthesis localization in 16 patients (80%). At manometry, mean anal resting pressure significantly improved (57.8 ± 7.5 mm Hg; p = 0.0004). Mean preoperative Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence score was 12.4 ± 1.8, with significant improvements initially documented at 3 months (4.9 ± 1.5; p < 0.0001) and sustained up to 36 months (4.9 ± 1.7; p < 0.0001). Patients receiving only 4 (compared with 6) prostheses and those experiencing pudendal neuropathy (compared with those who did not) showed significantly higher Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence score values in the middle term.
LIMITATIONS
The study was limited by its small sample size and absence of quality-of-life data.
CONCLUSIONS
Initial improvements after Gatekeeper implantation for fecal incontinence are sustained in the middle term. Accurate preoperative evaluation of coexistent clinical conditions that may negatively affect outcomes is recommended for patient selection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B109. RESULTADOS A MEDIANO PLAZO EN LA IMPLANTACIÓN DE GATEKEEPER PARA LA INCONTINENCIA FECAL: Los agentes de volumen inyectables interesfintéricos, son opciones actuales de tratamiento para la incontinencia fecal, ante fallas de terapias conductuales y médicas. Gatekeeper mostró resultados prometedores a corto plazo, pero resultados a largo plazo aún son desconocidos.Evaluar clínicamente una cohorte prospectiva de pacientes con incontinencia fecal, hasta 36 meses después de la implantación de Gatekeeper.Estudio clínico prospectivo.El estudio se realizó en un gran hospital universitario de atención terciaria.Fueron elegibles pacientes femeninas consecutivas, si el inicio de la incontinencia fecal, fue al menos 6 meses antes de la primera visita, y que los síntomas fueron refractarios a las medidas conservadoras estandarizadas.Todas las pacientes fueron sometidas a implantación de 4 o 6 prótesis Gatekeeper. Se realizó ecografía endoanal de 3D y manometría anorrectal de alta resolución, antes de la implantación y después a los 2 y 3 meses.Se calculó el puntaje de incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic al inicio, y a los 1, 3, 12, 24 y 36 meses después de la operación.Se inscribieron veinte pacientes (todas mujeres; con edad media de 59 años), y todos los implantes transcurrieron sin incidentes. La ecografía endoanal postoperatoria, mostró localización normal de la prótesis en 16 (80%) pacientes. A la manometría, la presión media de reposo anal, mejoró significativamente (57.8 ± 7.5 mmHg, p = 0.0004). La puntuación media preoperatoria de la incontinencia fecal de la Cleveland Clinic, fue de 12.35 ± 1.75, con mejoras significativas documentadas inicialmente a los 3 meses (4.9 ± 1.5, p <0.0001) y sostenidas hasta los 36 meses (4.9 ± 1.7, p <0.0001). Los pacientes que recibieron solo 4 prótesis (en comparación con 6) y que padecían neuropatía pudenda (en comparación con aquellas que no la padecían), mostraron valores de puntaje de Incontinencia Fecal de la Clínica Cleveland, significativamente más altos en el mediano plazo.El tamaño pequeño de la muestra y la ausencia de datos en calidad de vida.Las mejoras iniciales después de la implantación de Gatekeeper para la incontinencia fecal, se mantienen en el mediano plazo. Para la selección de pacientes, se recomienda una precisa evaluación preoperatoria de las condiciones clínicas coexistentes, que puedan afectar negativamente los resultados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B109.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31985515
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001559
pii: 00003453-202004000-00014
doi:

Types de publication

Clinical Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

514-519

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Références

Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:77–97.
Saldana Ruiz N, Kaiser AM. Fecal incontinence: challenges and solutions. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23:11–24.
Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44:77–80.
Thekkinkattil DK, Lim M, Stojkovic SG, Finan PJ, Sagar PM, Burke D. A classification system for faecal incontinence based on anorectal investigations. Br J Surg. 2008;95:222–228.
Rao SS. Pathophysiology of adult fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(1 suppl 1):S14–S22.
Brusciano L, Limongelli P, del Genio G, et al. Useful parameters helping proctologists to identify patients with defaecatory disorders that may be treated with pelvic floor rehabilitation. Tech Coloproctol. 2007;11:45–50.
Brusciano L, Limongelli P, del Genio G, et al. Clinical and instrumental parameters in patients with constipation and incontinence: their potential implications in the functional aspects of these disorders. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:961–967.
Ratto C, Parello A, Donisi L, et al. Novel bulking agent for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2011;98:1644–1652.
Ratto C, Donisi L, Litta F, Campennì P, Parello A. Implantation of SphinKeeper™: a new artificial anal sphincter. Tech Coloproctol. 2016;20:59–66.
Ratto C, Buntzen S, Aigner F, et al. Multicentre observational study of the Gatekeeper for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2016;103:290–299.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453–1457.
Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Dietz HP, et al. State of the art: an integrated approach to pelvic floor ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:381–396.
Brusciano L, Limongelli P, Pescatori M, et al. Ultrasonographic patterns in patients with obstructed defaecation. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007;22:969–977.
Prichard DO, Lee T, Parthasarathy G, Fletcher JG, Zinsmeister AR, Bharucha AE. High-resolution anorectal manometry for identifying defecatory disorders and rectal structural abnormalities in women. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:412–420.
Tan JJ, Chan M, Tjandra JJ. Evolving therapy for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:1950–1967.
Luo C, Samaranayake CB, Plank LD, Bissett IP. Systematic review on the efficacy and safety of injectable bulking agents for passive faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:296–303.
Tjandra JJ, Chan MK, Yeh HC. Injectable silicone biomaterial (PTQ) is more effective than carbon-coated beads (Durasphere) in treating passive faecal incontinence–a randomized trial. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:382–389.
de la Portilla F, Reyes-Díaz ML, Maestre MV, et al. Ultrasonographic evidence of Gatekeeper™ prosthesis migration in patients treated for faecal incontinence: a case series. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32:437–440.
Grossi U, De Simone V, Parello A, et al. Gatekeeper improves voluntary contractility in patients with fecal incontinence. Surg Innov. 2019;26:321–327.
Trenti L, Biondo S, Noguerales F, et al. Outcomes of GatekeeperTM prosthesis implantation for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a multicenter observational study. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21:963–970.
Al-Ozaibi L, Kazim Y, Hazim W, Al-Mazroui A, Al-Badri F. The Gatekeeper™ for fecal incontinence: another trial and error. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2014;5:936–938.
Jarrett ME, Matzel KE, Christiansen J, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence in patients with previous partial spinal injury including disc prolapse. Br J Surg. 2005;92:734–739.
Dudding TC, Parés D, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA. Sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence related to dysfunction of the internal anal sphincter. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010;25:625–630.

Auteurs

Luigi Brusciano (L)

Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurologic, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, General, Mini-invasive and Obesity Surgery Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Naples, Italy.

Salvatore Tolone (S)

Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurologic, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, General, Mini-invasive and Obesity Surgery Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Naples, Italy.

Gianmattia Del Genio (G)

Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurologic, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, General, Mini-invasive and Obesity Surgery Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Naples, Italy.

Ugo Grossi (U)

4th Surgery Unit, Treviso Regional Hospital, University of Padua, Treviso, Italy.

Antonio Schiattarella (A)

Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurologic, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, General, Mini-invasive and Obesity Surgery Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Naples, Italy.

Francesco Pio Piccolo (FP)

Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurologic, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, General, Mini-invasive and Obesity Surgery Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Naples, Italy.

Jacopo Martellucci (J)

General, Emergency and Mini-invasive Surgery, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy.

Michele Schiano di Visconte (M)

S. Maria dei Battuti' Hospital, Conegliano, Italy.

Ludovico Docimo (L)

Department of Medical, Surgical, Neurologic, Metabolic and Aging Sciences, General, Mini-invasive and Obesity Surgery Unit, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli," Naples, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH