Abstract
Fecal incontinence is a debilitating condition that afflicts many people every year. Its treatment is not simple and the results are not always exciting. Following the failure of medical therapy, the surgical approach consists of numerous possibilities, none of which has been identified as a possible gold standard. The most commonly used procedures are transposition of the gracilis muscle, implantation of a silicone or magnetic artificial anal sphincter, antegrade colonic enemas, and creation of a colostomy.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Fecal incontinence (FI) is a debilitating condition that affects up to 18% of the general population and up to 55% of the elderly [1], and causes frequent hospitalization in nursing homes, worsening the quality of life (QoL) of those affected. Although treatment is difficult and the success rate is often not high, simply attempting to correct it can significantly improve the patients’ QoL [2, 3]. The actual effectiveness of the surgical treatment of FI remains difficult to assess: most studies are retrospective and include only a limited number of patients, the data collection methods are not standardized, and no FI severity score has been universally accepted [4]. Several treatment options have been proposed over the last twenty years, but none of them can be considered the gold standard. The first step in a patient with FI is to rule out organic pathology (e.g., neoplasm); treatment involves the use of medications that reduce bowel motility, correction of the diet, and pelvic floor re-education. These three elements provide a solid basis for the initial treatment of FI, achieving some improvement in symptoms in almost half of the cases, without the need for further investigations or invasive procedures [5]. If medical nutritional therapy is insufficient to ensure improvement in the patient’s QoL, surgical therapy must be considered. The patient being considered for surgical intervention must first be adequately examined by performing clinical-instrumental tests such as anorectal manometry, endoanal and pelviperineal ultrasound, dynamic defecography (or MRI defecography), and electrophysiological tests such as electromyography and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency [6].
This chapter presents the main surgical options that can be used in patients with FI.
2 Dynamic Myoplasty
Pickrell et al. [7] first described the use of transposition of the gracilis as a neosphincter in 1952. The first electrically stimulated graciloplasty was reported in 1968 [8], but the concept of converting fast fibers to slow fibers using an electrical stimulator was not proposed until 1991 by Baeten et al. [9] and Williams et al. [10]. Electrically stimulated graciloplasty (dynamic graciloplasty) was developed in an effort to improve the functional results of simple transposition of the gracilis. The major limitations of unstimulated graciloplasty included the inability of patients to contract the transposed muscle voluntarily and the physiological inability of the muscle to sustain a tonic contraction over a prolonged period of time.
2.1 Technique
The patient is positioned in the lithotomy position with the thighs flexed, to expose the perineal region; intraoperative curarization is not required. Surgery begins with incision and mobilization of the gracilis muscle. The surgeon makes an incision on the medial inner aspect of the thigh, a few centimeters below the origin of the thigh, up to 10 cm before the knee. Mobilization of the gracilis muscle must start from its central part to preserve the main neurovascular pedicle. The left index finger placed under the gracilis pulls the muscle out, allowing dissection of the nearby connective tissue and coagulation of additional secondary vascular pedicles. The middle finger of the surgeon’s left hand penetrates the distal tendon to the pes anserinus (at the level of the internal tibial tuberosity), where a small incision is made. The distal gracilis tendon must be interrupted at this level. The muscle is then tipped over on the perineum, and it is important to avoid twisting or compressing its neurovascular pedicle. At this point, the perineorectal area must be prepared by making two lateral incisions of 4–5 cm each between the anal verge and ischium. To delineate the perineorectal area, a tunnel must be create between the origin of the thigh and the ipsilateral perineal incision. This tunnel must be large enough to allow the muscle to be laid without tension or obstruction, and special care must be taken to not twist the muscle. The gracilis muscle is rotated and passed through the perineorectal area to completely encircle the anal canal. It is important to avoid any contact between the muscle and the anal canal (because of the risk of ulceration) or excessive muscle tension (it must be possible to pass two fingers between the anal canal and the muscle). After checking for correct muscle tension, the distal tendon is fixed to the contralateral (gamma-shaped loop) or ipsilateral (alpha-shaped loop) ischium with an orthopedic tendon clamp. During fixation, the thigh must be positioned in full adduction to achieve adequate tightening and avoid secondary loosening. After hemostasis, the perineal incisions are closed without placing a drain. At this point, two neurostimulation electrodes are positioned and inserted into the muscle, with the anode placed in the distal portion and the cathode in the proximal one. The electrodes are fixed with nonabsorbable 4/0 Prolene sutures. Positioning of the electrodes connected to the external stimulator allows determination of the stimulation threshold and the maximum stimulation value. Placement of the neuromuscular pacemaker requires an incision in the ipsilateral iliac fossa of the harvested muscle to provide subcutaneous access from the origin of the thigh to the anterior abdominal wall. Sheathed electrodes are then passed through this subcutaneous pathway to the rectus sheath and connected to the neuromuscular pacemaker. The pacemaker is placed in the subcutaneous space and secured to the fascia with a nonabsorbable suture. The procedure ends with closure of the thigh and cessation of electrical stimulation. A Redon suction drain is inserted into the thigh and drained through the tibial incision. After hemostasis, the subcutaneous tissue and muscular perimysium are approximated by a continuous suture layer of slowly absorbable material. The cutaneous plane is closed with a continuous non-absorbable suture. The stimulator is synchronized by telemetry with the stimulation parameters determined during electrode placement [11].
2.2 Results
Wexner et al. [12] reported the results of a multicenter study of 115 patients who underwent stimulated graciloplasty between 1993 and 1999. Overall success, defined as a 50% reduction in the frequency of incontinence episodes, was achieved at 1 year in 62% of patients, none of whom had a stoma at the time of graciloplasty. These results were confirmed at 18 and 24 months in 55% and 56% of patients, respectively; 15% of patients in this group reported complete continence; 42% had continence levels of 50% to 99%. The success rate for patients who had a stoma at the time of graciloplasty was 37.5% at 1 year. This result improved significantly to 62% at 18-month follow-up. Significant improvements were also noted in QoL. A systematic review of the literature on dynamic graciloplasty [13] showed that the procedure is associated with a non-negligible morbidity, on average 1.12 events per patient (range, 0.14 to 2.08). These data suggest that either all patients had at least one complication or that some patients experienced multiple complications such as infection (28% of the cases), stimulator or electrode malfunction (15%), and leg pain (13%). Other complications, with a frequency greater than 5%, were constipation or obstructed defecation, anal pain, rectal or gracilis injury, and pacemaker battery depletion. The efficacy of the procedure, as measured by the satisfaction rate with continence, ranged from 42% to 85%. Reasons for stimulator explantation, ranging from 0.14 to 1.07 per patient, included erosion of the anal canal by the gracilis muscle, rectal perforation from use of enemas, rejection of the electrodes or stimulator, constipation, migration of the electrodes, detachment of the gracilis tendon from the ischium, battery malfunction, perianal abscess, pain, fistula, or perineal hernia. Dynamic graciloplasty continues to be performed in Europe and Canada, but the hardware for the procedure is not yet approved in the United States. Currently, its use is largely limited to a small number of centers where sufficient patient volume and surgical experience ensure low morbidity and satisfactory functional outcomes.
3 Artificial Bowel Sphincter
The first implantation of an artificial bowel sphincter (ABS) for FI was reported in 1987 [14]. Currently, there are two types of ABS: the one originally developed to replace the urinary sphincter but then used in patients with anal incontinence (Acticon neosphincter, American Medical Systems, Mn, USA) [15] and the newer magnetic anal sphincter (Fenix, Medical Thorax, Mn, USA) [16].
3.1 Acticon Neosphincter
The Acticon ABS is a fully implantable prosthesis made of a silicone elastomer. It consists of a perianal sphincter ring (cuff), a regulatory reservoir (balloon), and a control pump.
The ring is implanted in the upper anal canal. The three elements are connected by a kink-resistant tube. The pressure-regulating reservoir, which controls the pressure exerted on the anal canal by the closure ring, is implanted in the subperitoneal space of Retzius, lateral to the bladder. The control pump is implanted in the scrotum in males and in the labia majora in females and contains a resistor and a deactivation button in its upper part. The lower part of the pump consists of a piston that the patient squeezes to deliver the fluid inside the implant [15, 17]. The ABS works semiautomatically [15]. The sphincter muscle automatically provides constant anal closure at low pressure approaching physiological levels; the pressure is transmitted to the closure cuff by the pressure-regulating pump. Emptying is actively controlled by the patient: the anus is opened by transferring the fluid from the cuff to the pressure-regulating reservoir. Transfer is achieved by pressing the piston of the regulating pump five to ten times. Reclosure of the anus occurs automatically within minutes by gradually restoring the baseline pressure in the cuff.
3.1.1 Technique
The incision may be made perianally or laterally [17, 18], then a tunnel is created around the upper anal canal, about 5 cm deep, and dissected with the fingers. A long-curved forceps is then inserted along the dissection path around the anal canal to guide a tape (sizer) needed to determine the length of the occlusive cuff to be implanted.
The cuff is closed around the anal canal by passing the tubing through a slit at its end. Once the sphincter cuff is closed, a digital rectal examination can confirm the occlusive effect of the device.
A small suprapubic horizontal abdominal incision is made to create a space lateral to the bladder in the subperitoneal space of Retzius to accommodate the pressure-regulating balloon. The sphincter cuff tube is passed subcutaneously from the perineal incision to the abdominal incision.
The sphincter cuff is then inflated, the empty pressure-regulating balloon is implanted at its subperitoneal site and pressurized with 40 mL of radiopaque isotonic fluid. A Hegar dilator is then used to create a subcutaneous tunnel from the abdominal incision to the scrotum or labia, into which the control pump is inserted.
3.1.2 Results
ABS has shown significant and consistent improvement in the continence of patients. However, in two recent prospective studies [19, 20] surgical revision was required in approximately 50% of patients and explantation of the device was required in 25–35%, but 85% of patients who had a properly functioning ABS were satisfied with the device and its operation [19]. Wong et al. [20] reported a six-year success rate of 67% with satisfactory functional outcomes and QoL. The experience of Darnis et al. [21] was instead less positive: at least one complication occurred in all included patients. Skin infection or ulceration was reported in 76% of patients, perineal pain in 29%, rectal voiding dysfunction in 38% and ABS explantation in 81%. Compared to sacral neurostimulation, Acticon ABS appears to offer better continence outcomes [22]. However, due to a higher incidence of terminal constipation after implantation and the greater invasiveness of the technique, it is suggested as a second-line procedure. It should be noted that the use of this device has recently been limited by the failure of health authorities to extend reimbursement for this device. Currently, the decision to implant an ABS requires prior case-by-case approval by health authorities, limiting the use of Acticon to a few specialized centers [6].
3.2 Fenix Neosphincter
The Fenix magnetic ABS is inspired by the Lynx anti-reflux device recently developed to treat gastroesophageal reflux. The device consists of a series of titanium beads with hermetically sealed neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnetic cores. The beads are connected by independent titanium threads to form a flexible ring that wraps around the external anal sphincter. The device is manufactured in different lengths depending on the number of beads (14 to 20) needed to accommodate variations in the circumference of the anal canal. A sizing device, very similar to the final device, is used to determine the appropriate configuration. The separation force required to open the adjacent beads is approximately equivalent to 100 g and was chosen based on animal studies and literature data on voiding forces in healthy individuals and individuals with defecation disorders [16, 23]. During defecation, the patient simply strains as in normal defecation. The force generated by the straining determines the number of beads required to facilitate the passage of stool through the device. The device was designed with an excessive diametric capacity and therefore does not restrict defecation or cause excessive strain [16].
3.2.1 Technique
The device is usually implanted under general anesthesia. A single incision is made at the perineal body, carefully cutting the anterior anorectal vaginal septum to a depth of approximately 3–5 cm proximal to the anal verge. A measuring instrument is then inserted to accurately measure the circumference of the anorectal junction. After correct sizing under fluoroscopic control, the measuring tool is removed and the device is selected and implanted according to the number of beads required to encircle the anal canal [16].
3.2.2 Results
The Fenix magnetic ABS shows promising early results. The passive reinforcement of the anal canal by the magnetic “cuff” accounts for the originality and simplicity of this technique. The patient does not have to do anything, other than reproduce the effort of straining to empty the rectum [23]. Lehur et al. [16] reported surgical site infections in 21.4% of cases, requiring device removal in 14.3%. After a median follow-up of six months, 21.4% of patients no longer had the magnetic sphincter in place. Compared with conventional ABS, the duration of surgery and hospital stay were significantly shorter with the magnetic ABS [24]. Short-term functional outcomes were similar for both sphincters in terms of revision and withdrawal rates. Although these results are encouraging, the use of the magnetic sphincter is currently limited to a few centers, where its efficacy is still under investigation [23].
4 Antegrade Colonic Enemas
The antegrade colonic enema (ACE) was first described by Malone et al. [25] in 1990 for the treatment of FI in children. It involves the creation of a continent stoma according to the Mitrofanoff principle [26]. The original procedure involved resection of the appendix and its cuff, while preserving the appendicular artery. A submucosal tunnel was then created, to which the distal end of the appendix was sutured. The appendix was then passed out of the right side of the lower abdominal wall as a stoma. Later, several modifications of this technique were described that used the terminal ileum [27], the cecum, the left colon, or the stomach [28]. In each case, a Foley catheter is placed in the stoma and left in place for 15 days until the antegrade enemas begin. This involves introducing water and/or enema solution antegrade into the colon and emptying the colon of stool, to relieve both constipation and incontinence [29].
4.1 Results
Very few studies have described the results. Chéreau et al. [29] analyzed 75 patients who underwent ACE and observed early complications in 5.3% and late complications (after 3 months) in 16% of patients. The early complications were iatrogenic perforation of the small bowel, ileus, and postoperative pelvic abscess. The main late complication was stoma stenosis, with an incidence that varied from 8% to 50% [29, 30].
At a median follow-up of 48 months, treatment was considered successful in 86% of patients. Both the Wexner score for FI and the QoL score improved in all patients.
5 Colostomy
Colostomy may sometimes be considered as a first-line measure in FI, but traditionally it has been considered as a last therapeutic resort in patients in whom other treatments have failed [31]. Despite its curative potential, colostomy impacts on QoL, particularly because of altered body image and constant feeling of being sick [32]. However, in one study conducted on patients who underwent colostomy, acceptable social function was reported to be associated with higher QoL scores than patients with FI [33]. Norton et al. [34] reported that 84% of patients with a colostomy for FI would choose to have it again. The mortality rate after colostomy is approximately 2% [13], and complications mainly include bleeding and parastomal hernia [35]. Long-term complications include skin rashes, leaks, and edema, but these are mainly due to inadequate management of the ostomy pouching system [36]. In most cases, a sigmoid colostomy is performed, which has the advantage of being easy to perform. The stoma created with the sigmoid colon is indeed easier to manage with stoma devices due to the presence of formed stool. Nowadays, the recent improvements in stoma devices guarantee a better QoL and allow almost normal physical, social and sports activities [6]. As for the correct management of the rectosigmoid segment downstream from the stoma, this is still debated in the literature, with no clear opinions [31].
References
Landefeld C, Bowers B, Feld A, et al. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: prevention of fecal and urinary incontinence in adults. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(6):449–58.
Bordeianou L, Rockwood T, Baxter N, et al. Does incontinence severity correlate with quality of life? Prospective analysis of 502 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(3):273–9.
Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR), Pucciani F, Altomare DF, Dodi G, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence: consensus statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery and the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47(8):628–45.
Madoff RD. Surgical treatment options for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2004;126(1 Suppl 1):S48–54.
Damon H, Vitton V, Soudan D. Incontinence anale de l’adulte. New York: Springer; 2013.
Meurette G, Duchalais E, Lehur PA. Surgical approaches to fecal incontinence in the adult. J Visc Surg. 2014;151(1):29–39.
Pickrell KL, Broadbent TR, Masters FW, Metzger JT. Construction of a rectal sphincter and restoration of anal continence by transplanting the gracilis muscle; a report of four cases in children. Ann Surg. 1952;135(6):853–62.
Dickson JAS, Nixon HH. Control by electronic stimulator of incontinence after operation for anorectal agenesis. J Pediatr Surg. 1968;3(6):696–701.
Baeten CG, Konsten J, Spaans F, et al. Dynamic graciloplasty for treatment of faecal incontinence. Lancet. 1991;338(8776):1163–5.
Williams NS, Patel J, George BD, et al. Development of an electrically stimulated neoanal sphincter. Lancet. 1991;338(8776):1166–9.
Sans A, Mege D, Sielezneff I. One-stage dynamic graciloplasty for anal incontinence. J Visc Surg. 2017;154(6):437–48.
Wexner SD, Baeten C, Bailey R, et al. Long-term efficacy of dynamic graciloplasty for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(6):809–18.
Chapman AE, Geerdes B, Hewett P, et al. Systematic review of dynamic graciloplasty in the treatment of faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2002;89(2):138–53.
Christiansen J, Lorentzen M. Implantation of artificial sphincter for anal incontinence. Lancet. 1987;2(8553):244–5.
Lehur PA, Michot F, Glemain P, Mortreux JC. Le sphincter artificiel péri-anal AMS 800 dans le traitement de l’incontinence anale grave. Modalités de fonctionnement et technique d’implantation. Lyon Chir. 1996;92:251–5.
Lehur PA, McNevin S, Buntzen S, et al. Magnetic anal sphincter augmentation for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a preliminary report from a feasibility study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(12):1604–10.
O’Brien PE, Skinner S. Restoring control: the Acticon Neosphincter artificial bowel sphincter in the treatment of anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(9):1213–6.
Christiansen J, Sparso B. Treatment of anal incontinence by an implantable prosthetic anal sphincter. Ann Surg. 1992;215(4):383–6.
Wong WD, Congliosi SM, Spencer MP, et al. The safety and efficacy of the artificial bowel sphincter for fecal incontinence: results from a multicenter cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(9):1139–53.
Wong MTC, Meurette G, Wyart V, et al. The artificial bowel sphincter: a single institution experience over a decade. Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):951–6.
Darnis B, Faucheron JL, Damon H, Barth X. Technical and functional results of the artificial bowel sphincter for treatment of severe fecal incontinence: is there any benefit for the patient? Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(4):505–10.
Meurette G, La Torre M, Regenet N, et al. Value of sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of severe fecal incontinence: a comparison to the artificial bowel sphincter. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(6):631–5.
Bharucha AE, Croak AJ, Gebhart JB, et al. Comparison of rectoanal axial forces in health and functional defecatory disorders. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2006;290(6):G1164–9.
Wong MTC, Meurette G, Stangherlin P, Lehur PA. The magnetic anal sphincter versus the artificial bowel sphincter: a comparison of 2 treatments for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(7):773–9.
Malone PS, Ransley PG, Kiely EM. Preliminary report: the antegrade continence enema. Lancet. 1990;336(8725):1217–8.
Mitrofanoff P. Cystostomie continente trans-appendiculaire dans le traitement des vessies neurologiques. Chir Pediatr. 1980;21(4):297–305.
Christensen P, Kvitzau B, Krogh K, et al. Neurogenic colorectal dysfunction: use of new antegrade and retrograde colonic wash-out methods. Spinal Cord. 2000;38(4):255–61.
Kurzrock EA, Karpman E, Stone AR. Colonic tubes for the antegrade continence enema: comparison of surgical technique. J Urol. 2004;172(2):700–2.
Chéreau N, Lefèvre JH, Shields C, et al. Antegrade colonic enema for faecal incontinence in adults: long-term results of 75 patients. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(8):e238–42.
Patel AS, Saratzis A, Arasaradnam R, Harmston C. Use of antegrade continence enema for the treatment of fecal incontinence and functional constipation in adults: a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(10):999–1013.
Bharucha AE, Rao SSC, Shin AS. Surgical interventions and the use of device-aided therapy for the treatment of fecal incontinence and defecatory disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(12):1844–54.
Krouse RS, Grant M, Wendel CS, et al. A mixed-methods evaluation of health-related quality of life for male veterans with and without intestinal stomas. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(12):2054–66.
Colquhoun P, Kaiser R Jr, Efron J, et al. Is the quality of life better in patients with colostomy than patients with fecal incontience? World J Surg. 2006;30(10):1925–8.
Norton C, Burch J, Kamm MA. Patients’ views of a colostomy for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(5):1062–9.
Rao SSC. Current and emerging treatment options for fecal incontinence. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48(9):752–64.
Nugent KP, Daniels P, Stewart B, et al. Quality of life in stoma patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42(12):1569–74.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this license to share adapted material derived from this chapter or parts of it.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Selvaggi, F., Fuschillo, G., Selvaggi, L., Mosca, V., Sciaudone, G. (2023). Sphincter Reconstruction: Dynamic Myoplasty, Artificial Bowel Sphincter, Antegrade Colonic Enemas and Colostomy. In: Docimo, L., Brusciano, L. (eds) Anal Incontinence. Updates in Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08392-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08392-1_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-08391-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-08392-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)