Initial experience with SphinKeeper™ intersphincteric implants for faecal incontinence in the UK: a two-centre retrospective clinical audit

Endosonographic monitoring of Sphinkeeper® prostheses movements: does physical activity have an impact?

The Sphinkeeper® procedure for treating faecal incontinence (FI) may be associated with potential implant migration (IM) and dislocation (ID), with considerable variations regarding their occurrence and effects on consecutive functional outcome. This study assessed IM and ID following the Sphinkeeper® procedure and its correlation with physical activity. This was a prospective observational clinical study of ten patients undergoing Sphinkeeper® operation due to FI between August 2020 and November 2020 at the Medical University of Vienna. Patients were followed-up after 1, 2, 3 and 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Each follow-up visit included endosonographic monitoring of protheses location and manometric examinations. Additionally, functional outcome and physical activity were assessed using validated standardized questionnaires. The median number of prostheses implanted was 10 (IQR 9-10). The St. Mark's incontinence (SMS) score improved significantly until the last follow-up (p = 0.049), without observing a significant effect on the physical SF-12 score. The median rate of implants leading to IM and ID was 3 (range 1-4) and 2 (range 1-2) after 3 months of follow-up. A strong association of deltaSMS with number of dislocated prostheses at one month after Sphinkeeper® implantation was observed (r = 0.654, p = 0.078). Physical activity, assessed by the international physical activity questionnaire, did not have an impact on the correct prosthesis placement (1 month: p = 0.527; 2 months: p = 0.886; 3 months: p = 0.180; 6 months: p = 0.111). IM and ID of Sphinkeeper® prostheses occurred frequently early after surgery and affected functional outcome negatively. Physical activity did not have an influence on the implants displacement.

Long-term outcome after SphinKeeper® surgery for treating fecal incontinence-who are good candidates?

PURPOSE

The efficacy of the novel SphinKeeper® procedure for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI) is not yet well defined. This study aimed to assess long-term functional outcomes after SphinKeeper® surgery.

METHODS

We included 32 patients with FI (28 female), who were operated at a tertiary referral center between August 2018 and September 2021. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively using validated questionnaires before and after surgery. Additionally, endoanal ultrasound and anal manometry were conducted prior and after SphinKeeper® implantation. Predictive parameters for treatment success were defined.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 22.62 ± 8.82 months. The St. Mark's incontinence score decreased significantly after surgery (median preoperative = 19 (IQR 17-22) versus median last follow-up = 12 (IQR 8-16), p = 0.001). Similarly, physical short-form health survey showed a significant improvement after SphinKeeper® implantation (p = 0.011). Patients with a higher degree of internal sphincter defect showed an improved objective therapy success (r = 0.633, p = 0.015) after SphinKeeper® operation, whereas the type and severity of FI had no impact on the functional outcome. Notably, a higher number of dislocated prostheses (r = 0.772, p = 0.015) showed a significant correlation with reduced improvement of incontinence.

CONCLUSION

The SphinKeeper® procedure showed a significant long-term functional improvement in over half of the patients. Patients with a higher internal sphincter defect benefited most, whereas dislocation of the prostheses was associated with less favorable results.

Artificial sphincters: An overview from existing devices to novel technologies

Artificial sphincters (ASs) are used to replace the function of the biological sphincters in case of severe urinary and fecal incontinence (UI and FI), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The design of ASs is established on different mechanisms, e.g., magnetic forces or hydraulic pressure, with the final goal to achieve a implantable and durable AS. In clinical practice, the implantation of in-commerce AS is considered a reasonable solution, despite the sub-optimal clinical outcomes. The failure of these surgeries is due to the malfunction of the devices (between 46 and 51%) or the side effects on the biological tissues (more than 38%), such as infection and atrophy. Concentrating on this latter characteristic, particular attention has been given to the interaction between the biological tissues and AS, pointing out the closing mechanism around the duct and the effect on the tissues. To analyze this aspect, an overview of existing commercial/ready-on-market ASs for GERD, UI, and FI, together with the clinical outcomes available from the in-commerce AS, is given. Moreover, this invited review discusses ongoing developments and future research pathways for creating novel ASs. The application of engineering principles and design concepts to medicine enhances the quality of healthcare and improves patient outcomes. In this context, computational methods represent an innovative solution in the design of ASs, proving data on the occlusive force and pressure necessary to guarantee occlusion and avoid tissue damage, considering the coupling between different device sizes and individual variability.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of self-expandable implantable bulking agents for faecal incontinence: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate whether self-expandable implantable vs non-self-expandable injectable bulking agents (second-line therapies) are equal/superior in terms of effectiveness (severity, quality of life [QoL]) and safety (adverse events) for faecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, and five databases were searched (Medline via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology database). In-/exclusion criteria were predefined according to the PICOS scheme. The Institute of Health Economics risk of bias (RoB) tool assessed studies' internal validity. According to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, the strength of evidence for safety outcomes was rated. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

The evidence consists of eight prospective single-arm, before-after studies (166 patients) fulfilling the inclusion criteria for assessing clinical effectiveness and safety of implantable bulking agents. FI severity statistically significantly improved in five of seven studies rated by the Cleveland Clinic FI Score and in three of five studies measured by the Vaizey score. Statistically significant improved disease-related QoL was found in one of five studies measured by the FI QoL Score and in one of two studies rated by the American Medical Systems score. Procedure-related adverse events occurred in 16 of 166 patients (i.e., intraoperative complications, anal discomfort and pain). Device-related adverse events occurred in 48 of 166 patients, including prostheses' dislodgement and removed/extruded prostheses. Studies were judged with moderate/high RoB. The strength of evidence for safety was judged to be very low.

CONCLUSION

Implantable bulking agents might be an effective and safe minimally invasive option in FI treatment if conservative therapies fail. FI severity significantly improved, however, effects on QoL need to be explored in further studies. Due to the uncontrolled nature of the case series, comparative studies need to be awaited.

Faecal incontinence in adults

Faecal incontinence, which is defined by the unintentional loss of solid or liquid stool, has a worldwide prevalence of ≤7% in community-dwelling adults and can markedly impair quality of life. Nonetheless, many patients might not volunteer the symptom owing to embarrassment. Bowel disturbances, particularly diarrhoea, anal sphincter trauma (obstetrical injury or previous surgery), rectal urgency and burden of chronic illness are the main risk factors for faecal incontinence; others include neurological disorders, inflammatory bowel disease and pelvic floor anatomical disturbances. Faecal incontinence is classified by its type (urge, passive or combined), aetiology (anorectal disturbance, bowel symptoms or both) and severity, which is derived from the frequency, volume, consistency and nature (urge or passive) of stool leakage. Guided by the clinical features, diagnostic tests and therapies are implemented stepwise. When simple measures (for example, bowel modifiers such as fibre supplements, laxatives and anti-diarrhoeal agents) fail, anorectal manometry and other tests (endoanal imaging, defecography, rectal compliance and sensation, and anal neurophysiological tests) are performed as necessary. Non-surgical options (diet and lifestyle modification, behavioural measures, including biofeedback therapy, pharmacotherapy for constipation or diarrhoea, and anal or vaginal barrier devices) are often effective, especially in patients with mild faecal incontinence. Thereafter, perianal bulking agents, sacral neuromodulation and other surgeries may be considered when necessary.

A prospective trial of the THD SphinKeeper® for faecal incontinence

AIM

THD 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.

METHOD

This 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.

RESULTS

Thirteen 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.

CONCLUSION

In 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.

Sphinkeeper Procedure for Treating Severe Faecal Incontinence-A Prospective Cohort Study

(1) Background: The Sphinkeeper implantation for faecal incontinence (FI) is a novel surgical procedure with limited data on its clinical efficacy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the functional outcome following Sphinkeeper surgery in patients with refractory FI. (2) Methods: Between 2018 and 2020, eleven consecutive patients (9 female) with FI met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled for surgery. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated by standard questionnaires pre- and post-surgery. Migration of protheses was demonstrated by 3D endoanal ultrasound. The median follow-up time was eight months (range 3–18 months). (3) Results: The median age was 75 years (range 46–89 years) with a median BMI of 27.4 (range 21.2–30.1). The median number of implanted prostheses per intervention was nine (range 9–10). We found no intraoperative or early postoperative complications. After two months, two prostheses in one patient had to be removed due to pain at the perianal skin site. The median St. Mark’s incontinence score decreased significantly from 22 to 13 points (p = 0.008). The SF-12 showed a significant improvement (35.9 versus 46.3) after surgery (p = 0.028). A migration of at least one prosthesis was observed in ten patients (91%). Six (60%) prostheses were found at the same level in another ten patients. (4) Conclusion: Sphinkeeper implantation is a promising surgical technique for patients with severe FI. The complication rate is low, and short-term functional improvement can be achieved even in severe forms of FI. Migration of implants commonly occurs.