SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Is magnetic anal sphincter augmentation still an option in fecal incontinence treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMagnetic 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsOverall, 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.
conclusionThe 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.
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.