Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Is magnetic anal sphincter augmentation still an option in fecal incontinence treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Is magnetic anal sphincter augmentation still an option in fecal incontinence treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Is magnetic anal sphincter augmentation still an option in fecal incontinence treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Is magnetic anal sphincter augmentation still an option in fecal incontinence treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2024
Overview
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.
