4.5 Article

Does the magnetic anal sphincter device compare favourably with sacral nerve stimulation in the management of faecal incontinence?

Journal

COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages E323-E329

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02995.x

Keywords

Faecal incontinence; magnetic anal sphincter; sacral nerve stimulation; surgery; results; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim The magnetic anal sphincter (MAS) is a recent surgical innovation for severe faecal incontinence (FI). With its place in the treatment algorithm of FI yet to be defined, we report a nonrandomized comparison between MAS and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in a single-centre cohort of patients with FI. Method Data were reviewed from prospective databases. From December 2008 to December 2010, 12 women [median age 65 (4276) years], having FI for a median of 6.5 years, were implanted with a MAS. Sixteen women, of similar age, preoperative function scores, aetiology and duration of incontinence, and implanted with a permanent SNS pulse generator during the same period, served as a reference group. The duration of hospital stay, complications, change in incontinence and quality of life scores and anal physiology were compared between the two groups. Results The duration of follow up was similar [MAS = 18 (830) months vs SNS = 22 (1028) months; P = 0.318]. Four patients with MAS experienced a 30-day complication, and the device was removed from one patient in each group. A significant improvement in incontinence (P < 0.001) and quality-of-life scores (P < 0.04) occurred in both groups. Mean anal resting pressure increased significantly in patients implanted with a MAS (P = 0.027). Conclusion In this single-centre nonrandomized cohort of FI patients, MAS was as effective as SNS in improving continence and quality of life, with similar morbidity. These results can now serve as a prelude to a randomized trial comparing the procedures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available