Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Artificial anal sphincter has been proposed in severe anal incontinence when local treatment is unsuitable or has failed. The outcome after implantation of this newly developed device has not yet been determined. METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive patients (7 men; median age, 44; standard deviation, 18; range, 14–80 years) implanted since May 1996 for a minimum of six months at three centers were prospectively evaluated. Continence (scoring system, 0 (normal) to 120 (complete incontinence)), rectal emptying, and general satisfaction were assessed clinically and at anal manometry preoperatively and postoperatively at a six-month interval. The causes of incontinence included anal trauma (9 cases), neuropathy (6 cases), neurologic disorders (4 cases), congenital malformations (3 cases), and prolapse (2 cases). Median duration of incontinence was 7.5 (standard deviation, 8) years. Stomas pre-existed in two cases and was created at implantation in one. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 20 (standard deviation, 8; range, 10–35) months. Seven patients had their devices explanted, and reimplantation was successfully performed in three of these cases. At the end of follow-up, 20 (83 percent) patients had an implanted activated device. Fecal incontinence score dropped significantly from a median 106 (standard deviation, 13) preoperatively to 19 (standard deviation, 32), 25 (standard deviation, 29), and 25 (standard deviation, 25) at six months, one year, and the end of follow-up, respectively (P<0.0001). Minor and major emptying difficulties occurred in seven and two patients, respectively. A high degree of satisfaction was achieved at the end of follow-up in 18 (75 percent) of the total series. Median anal pressures at rest on manometry increased significantly from 28 (standard deviation, 17; range, 5–76) mmHg preoperatively to 60 (standard deviation, 17; range, 38–96) mmHg with a closed cuff at the end of follow-up. These pressures dropped to 30 (standard deviation, 16; range, 9–65) mmHg with an open cuff, and reocclusion time lasted a median of 4.6 minutes (standard deviation, 3 minutes; range, 38 seconds to 10 minutes). CONCLUSION: Artificial anal sphincter provided prolonged and reasonably good functional results in severe incontinence, reproducing an efficient sphincteric mechanism and allowing satisfactory anal occlusion and rectal emptying in approximately 75 percent of cases in this study. The definitive explantation rate was kept low by careful patient selection and appropriate surgical and perioperative management.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Christiansen J, Lorentzen M. Implantation of artificial sphincter for anal incontinence. Lancet 1987;1:244–5.
Christiansen J, Sparso B. Treatment of anal incontinence by an implantable prosthetic anal sphincter. Ann Surg 1992;215:383–6.
Wong WD, Jensen LL, Bartolo DC, Rothenberger DA. Artificial anal sphincter. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1345–51.
Lehur PA, Michot F, Denis Ph,et al. Results of artificial sphincter in severe anal incontinence: report of 14 consecutive implantations. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1352–5.
Hajivassiliou CA, Finlay IG. Effect of a novel prosthetic anal neosphincter on human colonic blood flow. Br J Surg 1998;85:1703–7.
Lehur PA, Glemain P, Bruley des Varannes S, Buzelin JM, Leborgne J. Outcome of patients with an implanted artificial anal sphincter for severe faecal incontinence. A single institution report. Int J Colorectal Dis 1998;13:88–92.
Vaisey CJ, Kamm MA, Gold DM, Bartram CI, Halligan S, Nicholls RJ. Clinical, physiological, and radiological study of the new purpose-designed artificial bowel sphincter. Lancet 1998;352:105–9.
American Medical Systems. Fecal incontinence scoring system. Minnetonka: American Medical Systems, 1996.
Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 1999;44:77–80.
Martelli H, Devroede G, Arhan P, Duguay C, Dornic C, Faverdin C. Some parameters of large bowel motility in normal man. Gastroenterology 1978;75:612–8.
Roig JV, Villoslada C, Lledo S,et al. Prevalence of pudendal neuropathy in fecal incontinence: results of a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:952–8.
Litwiller SE, Kim KB, Foue PD, White RW, Stone AR. Post-prostatectomy incontinence and the artificial urinary sphincter: a long-term study of patient satisfaction and criteria for success. J Urol 1996;156:1975–80.
Montague DK. The artificial urinary sphincter (AS 800): experience in 166 consecutive patients. J Urol 1992;147:380–2.
Leo ME, Barrett DM. Success of the narrow backed cuff design of the AMS800 artificial urinary sphincter: analysis of 144 patients. J Urol 1993;150:1412–4.
Baeten CG. Surgical treatment of anal incontinence. Br J Surg 1998;85:723–4.
Baeten CG, Geerdes BP, Adang EM,et al. Anal dynamic graciloplasty in the treatment of intractable fecal incontinence. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1600–5.
Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA, Nicholls RJ. Recent advances in the surgical treatment of faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1998;85:596–603.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported in part by a grant from Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches en Chirurgie.
Read at The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' 100th Anniversary and Tripartite Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 1 to 6, 1999.
About this article
Cite this article
Lehur, P.A., Roig, J.V. & Duinslaeger, M. Artificial anal sphincter. Dis Colon Rectum 43, 1100–1106 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236557
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236557