Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
The surgical approach to treating fecal incontinence is complex. After optimal medical management has failed, surgery remains the best option for restoring function. Patient factors, such as prior surgery, anatomic derangements, and degree of incontinence, help inform the astute surgeon regarding the most appropriate option. Many varied approaches to surgical management are available, ranging from more conservative approaches, such as anal canal bulking agents and neuromodulation, to more aggressive approaches, including sphincter repair, anal cerclage techniques, and muscle transposition. Efficacy and morbidity of these approaches also range widely, and this article presents the data and operative considerations for these approaches.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gtc.2013.09.006 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!