A review of contemporary surgical alternatives to permanent colostomy

• Published in: International journal of surgery (London, England) Vol. 3; no. 3; pp. 193 - 205
• Main Authors: Gurusamy, K.S., Marzouk, D., Benziger, H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 2005
• Subjects: Artificial bowel sphincter; Dynamic graciloplasty; Faecal incontinence; Neosphincter; Sacral nerve stimulation; Neosphincter; Faecal incontinence; Dynamic graciloplasty; Artificial bowel sphincter; Sacral nerve stimulation
• ISSN: 1743-9191; 1743-9159
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2005.07.004

To review the options available to patients with faecal incontinence with failed conservative treatment and/or failed anal sphincter repair and assessing the current indications and results of these options. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was performed using the relevant search terms. Continent options for patients with severe or end stage faecal incontinence include the creation of a form of an anal neosphincter and more recently sacral nerve stimulation. Over half the patients, who are candidates, may benefit from these procedures, although long term results of sacral nerve stimulation are unknown. Dynamic graciloplasty improves the continence in 44–79% of the patients. The complications include frequent reoperations, high incidence of infection and obstructive defaecation. The success rates of artificial bowel sphincter vary between 24% and 79%. Once functional, the artificial bowel sphincter seems to improve the continence in the majority of the patients. Device removal due to infection, obstructive defaecation and pain is a frequent problem. Sacral nerve stimulation is claimed to result in improvement in continence in 35–100% of patients. The main risks in this procedure are infection, electrode displacement and pain. All these procedures have high complication rates and have moderate success rates only. A major proportion of patients will need reoperations and hence high motivation is necessary for patients who undergo these procedures. A uniform standard for measurement of success is also necessary so that these procedures can be compared with each other.