Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Initial experience with SphinKeeper™ intersphincteric implants for faecal incontinence in the UK: a two-centre retrospective clinical audit.
Leo, C A; Leeuwenburgh, M; Orlando, A; Corr, A; Scott, S M; Murphy, J; Knowles, C H; Vaizey, C J; Giordano, P.
Afiliación
  • Leo CA; Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Leeuwenburgh M; Sir Alan Park's Physiology Unit, St Mark's Hospital Academic Institute, Harrow, UK.
  • Orlando A; Haaglanden Medisch Centrum, The Hague, The Netherlands.
  • Corr A; Imperial College London, London, UK.
  • Scott SM; Sir Alan Park's Physiology Unit, St Mark's Hospital Academic Institute, Harrow, UK.
  • Murphy J; Sir Alan Park's Physiology Unit, St Mark's Hospital Academic Institute, Harrow, UK.
  • Knowles CH; National Bowel Research Centre and GI Physiology Unit, Centre for Neuroscience, Surgery and Trauma, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
  • Vaizey CJ; Royal London Hospital, London, UK.
  • Giordano P; Imperial College London, London, UK.
Colorectal Dis ; 22(12): 2161-2169, 2020 12.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32686233
ABSTRACT

AIM:

The SphinKeeper™ artificial bowel sphincter implant is a relatively new surgical technique for the treatment of refractory faecal incontinence. This study presents the first experience in two UK tertiary centres.

METHOD:

This is a retrospective audit of prospectively collected clinical data in relation to technique, safety, feasibility and short-term effectiveness from patients undergoing surgery from January 2016 to April 2019. Baseline data, intra-operative and postoperative complications, symptoms [using St Mark's incontinence score (SMIS)] and radiological outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS:

Twenty-seven patients [18 women, median age 57 years (range 27-87)] underwent SphinKeeper. In 30% of the patients, the firing device jammed and not all prostheses were delivered. There were no intra-operative complications and all patients were discharged the same or the following day. SMIS significantly improved from baseline [median -6 points (range -12 to +3); P < 0.00016] with 14/27 (51.9%) patients achieving a 50% reduction in the SMIS score. On postoperative imaging, a median of seven prostheses (range 0-10) were identified with a median of five (range 0-10) optimally placed. There was no relationship between number of well-sited prostheses on postoperative imaging and categorical success based on 50% reduction in SMIS (χ2 test, P = 0.79).

CONCLUSION:

SphinKeeper appears to be a safe procedure for faecal incontinence. Overall, about 50% patients achieved a meaningful improvement in symptoms. However, clinical benefit was unrelated to the rate of misplaced/migrated implants. This has implications for confidence in proof of mechanism and also the need for technical refinement.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Incontinencia Fecal Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Límite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Colorectal Dis Asunto de la revista: GASTROENTEROLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Incontinencia Fecal Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Patient_preference Límite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Colorectal Dis Asunto de la revista: GASTROENTEROLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido
...