Evidence Hub

Long-term results after anterior sphincteroplasty for anal incontinence

Mevik K, Norderval S, Kileng H, Johansen M, Vonen B

Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society, 2009

29 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long term incontinence and quality of life (Qol) results after elective anterior sphincteroplasty for anal incontinence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Short and long term follow-up included respectively 28 and 25 of the 29 patients who were operated between 1989 and 1998 in our institution. Qol was assessed with gastro intestinal quality of life index (GIQLI). Incontinence was graded according to Parks score supplied with St Mark's score at long term follow-up.

RESULTS: 21 (73%) patients had a history of obstetric sphincter tears. Mean age at operation was 45 years (range 6-77). Median time from operation to short term follow-up was 26 months (mean 38 months, range 2-113) and 84 months (mean 105, range 74-185) to long term follow-up. At short term follow-up 19 of 28 patients (68%) were continent for stool compared with nine of 25 patients (36%) at long term follow-up. Nine of 17 (53%) who were continent for stool at short term follow-up remained continent for stool at long term follow-up. Patients with a history of obstetric sphincter tear had less severe incontinence at long term follow-up compared to women with other causes of incontinence (St. Mark's score 8 and 16 respectively, p = 0,015). Patients with no incontinence or gas incontinence only, had higher quality of life score at both follow-ups than those who where incontinent for stool (p = 0,007 and p= 0,014 respectively).

CONCLUSION: More than half of the patients remained continent for stool at…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 29 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free