Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Colorectal Diseasearrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Colorectal Disease
Article . 2022 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
UQ eSpace
Article . 2022
Data sources: UQ eSpace
UQ eSpace
Article . 2022
Data sources: UQ eSpace
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

A prospective trial of the THD SphinKeeper® for faecal incontinence

Authors: Rachel Colbran; Christopher Gillespie; Andrea Warwick;

A prospective trial of the THD SphinKeeper® for faecal incontinence

Abstract

AbstractAimTHD SphinKeeper® is an emerging surgical technique for faecal incontinence (FI). The safety, indications and efficacy of the procedure are still being investigated. The aim of this study is to present the first experience of SphinKeeper® in Australia.MethodThis was a prospective single‐centre observational study of patients undergoing SphinKeeper® implantation between February 2018 and September 2019. Baseline demographics, intraoperative and postoperative complications, Cleveland Clinic Faecal Incontinence Score, St Mark's Incontinence Score, Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life score (FIQOL), anorectal manometry and endo‐anal ultrasound were assessed preoperatively and 3 and 12 months after implantation.ResultsThirteen patients (2 male, 11 female) underwent implantation during the study period. Anal sphincter defects were present in 13 (76.9%) patients [external anal sphincter (EAS) defect, 2 (15.4%); internal anal sphincter (IAS) defect 4 (30.8%); EAS + IAS defect, 4 (30.8%)]. Median follow‐up was 32 months (range 18–37 months). There were four complications: one intraoperative (rectal perforation) and three postoperative (one implant extrusion, two implants that required removal due to malposition). At 12 months, an average of 9/10 implants remained ideally placed in each patient. THD SphinKeeper® insertion was associated with an improvement in coping/behaviour as measured using FIQOL (p = 0.047). However, the procedure did not improve FI scores or anorectal manometry parameters.ConclusionIn this study, SphinKeeper® marginally improved symptoms of FI but there was no significant impact on anorectal manometric measurements. Larger‐scale studies are needed to determine the patient cohort most likely to benefit from this procedure.

Keywords

Male, Manometry, faecal incontinence, Anal Canal, Endosonography, Sphinkeeper, Quality of Life, Humans, 2715 Gastroenterology, Female, Prospective Studies, sphincter defect, Fecal Incontinence

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    5
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
5
Top 10%
Average
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!