Skip to main content
Log in

Restoring control

The action neosphincter® artificial bowel sphincter in the treatment of anal incontinence

  • Presidential Address
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: Anal incontinence is a socially disabling problem affecting 1 to 2 percent of the population. Anal sphincter replacement is a treatment option if the problem is severe and not amenable to direct repair. The artificial bowel sphincter is an innovative approach. We report the technique for placement and the outcomes which have occurred in an initial series of 13 patients. METHODS: The Acticon Neosphincter® artificial bowel sphincter consists of an inflatable cuff of silicone elastomer placed around the anal canal and connected to a pressure-regulating balloon in the iliac fossavia a control pump placed in the labium or scrotum. Thirteen patients with severe anal incontinence not amenable to other methods were treated. Causes of incontinence included obstetric damage in eight patients, surgical damage in two patients, imperforate anus in two patients, and spina bifida in one patient. RESULTS: Surgical placement of the device was straightforward, mean operating time was 65 minutes, and median length of stay was 3.6 days. One infection of the perineal wound occurred in the early postoperative period necessitating removal of the device. In two further patients the artificial bowel sphincter was removed because of late infection in one at seven months and because of erosion through the skin in another at three months. The artificial bowel sphincter has been activated in ten patients resulting in full continence to solids and liquids except in one patient with postvagotomy diarrhea who had some leakage of liquids during episodes of diarrhea. The mean (± standard deviation) continence score (Cleveland Clinic system; maximal incontinence = 20) changed from 18.7 ± 1.6 preoperatively to 2.1 ± 2.6 after activation (P<0.0001). Quality of life measured using a continence-specific series of up to 39 questions changed from 77 ± 16 percent of maximal reduction of quality preoperatively to 12 ± 19 percent postoperatively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The artificial bowel sphincter can be placed without technical difficulty and with low morbidity. Preliminary experience shows full restoration of continence in most patients and ease of use. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the extent of problems with infection, erosion, and mechanical failure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nelson R, Norton N, Cautley E, Furner S. Community-based prevalence of anal incontinence. JAMA 1995;274:559–61.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Jagelman DG. The role of sphincteroplasty for fecal incontinence reevaluated: a prospective physiologic and functional review. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:22–30.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Setti-Carraro O, Kamm MA, Nicholls RJ. Long-term results of postanal repair for neurogenic faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 1994;81:140–4.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sielezneff I, Malouf AJ, Bartolo DC, Pryde A, Douglas S. Dynamic graciloplasty in the treatment of patients with faecal incontinence Br J Surg 1999;86:61–5.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Christiansen J, Sparso B. Treatment of anal incontinence by an implantable prosthetic anal sphincter. Ann Surg 1992;215:383–6.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lehur PA, Michot F, Denis P, Grise P,et al. Results of artificial sphincter in severe anal incontinence: report of 14 consecutive implantations. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1352–5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wong WD, Jensen LL, Bartolo DC, Rothenberger DA. Artificial anal sphincter. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1345–51.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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. Int J Colorectal Dis 1998;13:88–92.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA, Gold DM, Bartram CL, Halligan S, Nicholls RJ. Clinical, physiological and radiological study of a new purpose-designed artificial bowel sphincter. Lancet 1998;352:105–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1993:36:77–97.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

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

O'Brien, P.E., Skinner, S. Restoring control. Dis Colon Rectum 43, 1213–1216 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237423

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237423

Key words

Navigation