Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39621137›Full record

SynthesisTechniques in coloproctology2024

A systematic review of the clinical treatment of patients with fecal incontinence by artificial anal sphincter.

M Wang, W Zhou, J Liu, Y Liao, B Liu, H Yu

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M WangInstitute of Rehabilitation Engineering and Technology, School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Jungong Road 516, Shanghai, 200093, China. mhren08@163.com.
W ZhouInstitute of Rehabilitation Engineering and Technology, School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Jungong Road 516, Shanghai, 200093, China.
J LiuInstitute of Rehabilitation Engineering and Technology, School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Jungong Road 516, Shanghai, 200093, China.
Y LiaoInstitute of Rehabilitation Engineering and Technology, School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Jungong Road 516, Shanghai, 200093, China.
B LiuInstitute of Rehabilitation Engineering and Technology, School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Jungong Road 516, Shanghai, 200093, China.
H YuInstitute of Rehabilitation Engineering and Technology, School of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Jungong Road 516, Shanghai, 200093, China.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China Project No. 31900944
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of artificial anal sphincters in clinical practice.

methodsA systematic review of literatures on artificial anal sphincters in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed. The literature was reviewed three times by several independent investigators, resulting in the identification of 47 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The primary outcomes of interest included adverse events, incontinence assessment, quality of life assessment, and anorectal manometry.

resultsA total of 12 postoperative complications related to the implantation of the different artificial anal sphincters were reported. Four different incontinence rating scales and four quality of life scales were used to assess patients' fecal incontinence and improvement in quality of life. A total of 29 studies measured changes in patients' anorectal pressure before and after surgery.

conclusionsIn terms of safety, patients implanted with an artificial anal sphincter may develop complications such as pain, infection, defecation obstruction, and surgical revision. In terms of effectiveness, different artificial anal sphincters had significant effects on patients with fecal incontinence, but as a result of the insufficient sample size of the study, more relevant studies are needed for further validation in the future.

Indexed as

Anal CanalFecal IncontinenceManometryPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeArtificial OrgansFemaleHumansMaleProstheses and ImplantsProsthesis ImplantationTreatment OutcomeArtificial anal sphincterClinical applicationFecal incontinenceSurgerySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39621137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.