Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Mar 19;409(1):98.
doi: 10.1007/s00423-024-03288-x.

Is magnetic anal sphincter augmentation still an option in fecal incontinence treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Stavros Chrysovalantis Liapis  1 , Konstantinos Perivoliotis  2   3 , Amalia Ioanna Moula  2 , Prokopis Christodoulou  4 , Kyriakos Psarianos  2 , Alexios Stavrou  2 , Ioannis Baloyiannis  3 , Dimitrios Lytras  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Is magnetic anal sphincter augmentation still an option in fecal incontinence treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Stavros Chrysovalantis Liapis et al. Langenbecks Arch Surg. .

Abstract

Purpose: Magnetic anal sphincter (MAS) augmentation is a novel surgical option for the treatment of fecal incontinence. Current clinical evidence is conflicting. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to report the safety profile, potential benefits, and the functional efficacy of this device.

Methods: The study followed the PRISMA guidelines. Literature databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL) were screened for eligible articles. The primary endpoint was the pooled effect of MAS in the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS) score. Quality evaluation was based on the ROBINS-I and Risk of Bias 2 tool.

Results: Overall, 8 studies with 205 patients were included. MAS resulted in a significant reduction of CCIS values (p = 0.019), and improvement only in the embarrassment domain of FIQoL scores (p = 0.034). The overall morbidity rate was 61.8%. Postoperative adverse events included MAS explantation in 12%, infection in 5.1%, pain in 10% and obstructed defecation in 5.8% of patients.

Conclusion: The application of MAS in patients with fecal incontinence results in the improvement of some clinical parameters with a notable morbidity rate. Due to several study limitations, further, high-quality RCTs are required to delineate the efficacy and safety of MAS.

Keywords: Anal; Augmentation; Fecal; Incontinence; Magnetic; Sphincter.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Bharucha AE, Knowles CH, Mack I et al (2022) Faecal incontinence in adults. Nat Rev Dis Prim 8:53. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-022-00381-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mack I, Hahn H, Gödel C et al (2023) Global Prevalence of Fecal Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2023.09.004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Group ES of C (ESCP) C, Dulskas A (2023) The 2022 European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) global snapshot audit of faecal incontinence: Study protocol. Color Dis 25:1694–1697. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16633 - DOI
    1. Gallo G, Realis Luc A (2023) Epidemiology, anorectal anatomy, physiology and pathophysiology of continence. In: Docimo L (ed) Anal Incontinence, Updates in Surgery. Springer, Cham, pp 9–17
    1. Knol ME, Bastiaannet E, DeRuiter MC et al (2023) Clinical characteristics of phenotypes of fecal incontinence. Tech Coloproctol 27:475–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-023-02778-2 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources