ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2015
Long-term evaluation of bulking agents for the treatment of fecal incontinence: clinical outcomes and ultrasound evidence.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Midterm outcomes of injectable bulking agents for fecal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2017Pooled it
- Skeletal muscle-derived cell implantation for the treatment of sphincter-related faecal incontinence.Stem cell research & therapy · 2018Trial
- Autologous Myoblasts for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence: Results of a Phase 2 Randomized Placebo-controlled Study (MIAS).Annals of surgery · 2018Trial
- Endosonographic monitoring of SphinkeeperUpdates in surgery · 2024Observational
- A short- and long-term follow-up study of intersphincteric NASHA Dx implants for fecal incontinence.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- An evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of Gatekeeper™ intersphincteric implants for passive faecal incontinence.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- [Surgical reconstruction of traumatic sphincter muscle defects].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2020Review
- Multicentre observational study of the Gatekeeper for faecal incontinence.The British journal of surgery · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe injection of bulking agents into the anal canal has been reported to help patients with fecal incontinence. Although it has been advocated as a safe and effective option, substantial data concerning long-term efficacy are still lacking, and the resorption process of the implants has not yet been carefully studied. The aim of our study was to investigate the long-term outcomes of bulking agents for the treatment of fecal incontinence and the behavior of implanted materials in the anorectum.
methodsAt a median follow-up of 7 years, 19 patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence who had received bulking agent implants were evaluated. Clinical, manometric and ultrasound assessments were carried out.
resultsThe clinical improvements that were achieved in the short term were not maintained over time. For each patient, the number of implants that could no longer be identified on ultrasound was significantly correlated with poorer clinical long-term outcomes. On average, only 14% of the originally injected volume was still detectable.
conclusionsIn the long term, perianally injected bulking agents seem to lose effectiveness. The ultrasound assessment suggests that the process of resorption is almost complete, and the implants are no longer effective in treating incontinence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.