New surgical options for fecal incontinence in patients with imperforate anus.

Introduction: Anorectal malformations are among the various etiologic factors causing fecal incontinence. Patients with imperforate anus are difficult to treat, specifically those with high lesions. The artificial bowel sphincter and electrically stimulated gracilis neosphincter are two relatively new techniques that have been used for the treatment of patients with severe refractory fecal incontinence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of these technologies in the treatment of patients with chronic fecal incontinence due to imperforate anus.

Methods: All patients with imperforate anus who had fecal incontinence and underwent either the artificial bowel sphincter procedure or the gracilis neosphincter procedure between February 1995 and December 2000 were evaluated. Preoperative and postoperative incontinence score (Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence Score; 0 = perfect continence; 20 = complete incontinence), quality of life, (Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale, 29 items forming 4 scales), and manometric sphincter pressure results were compared.

Results: Eleven patients had artificial bowel sphincter and five had the gracilis neosphincter (one nonstimulated) procedure. There were 11 males and 5 females of a mean age of 25.3 (range, 15-45) years. The mean follow-up time was 1.7 years (5 months to 5.7 years). Eight (50 percent) complications occurred in six patients, including three with fecal impaction (all artificial bowel sphincter), three with device migration (two gracilis neosphincter, one artificial bowel sphincter), and two patients with concomitant wound infection (one gracilis neosphincter, one artificial bowel sphincter); no patients had the devices explanted. Fourteen patients had manometric data (10 artificial bowel sphincter and 4 gracilis neosphincter) available. The overall incontinence score decreased from a preoperative mean of 18.5 to a postoperative mean of 7.5 in the artificial bowel sphincter group (P < 0.01) and from 17.4 to 9.4 in the gracilis neosphincter group (P = 0.06). All four Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life scales increased in both the artificial bowel sphincter (lifestyle and depression/self-perception, P = 0.02; coping/behavior and embarrassment, P = 0.03) and the gracilis neosphincter (lifestyle and coping, P = 0.06; depression and embarrassment, P = 0.05) patients. As well, the mean resting and squeeze pressures increased with both techniques (artificial bowel sphincter: P = 0.008 and P = 0.02, respectively; gracilis neosphincter: P = 0.4 and P = 0.1, respectively). All results were statistically significant in the artificial bowel sphincter group.

Conclusions: Artificial bowel sphincter and gracilis neosphincter are efficient methods to treat patients with imperforate anus. These techniques should be considered for patients with imperforate anus and severe fecal incontinence.