» Articles » PMID: 30547721

Gatekeeper Improves Voluntary Contractility in Patients With Fecal Incontinence

Overview
Journal Surg Innov
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2018 Dec 15
PMID 30547721
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Gatekeeper (GK) has shown to be safe and effective in patients with fecal incontinence (FI). We aimed to understand its mechanism of action by comparing pre- and post-implant change in the external anal sphincter (EAS) contractility.

Methods: Study of EAS contractility was conducted in 16 FI females (median age = 69 years) before and after implant of 6 GK prostheses. Muscle tension ( Tm), expressed in millinewtons per centimeter squared, mN(cm), was calculated using the equation Tm = P(r)(tm), where P is the average maximum squeeze pressure and r and tm the inner radius and thickness of the EAS, respectively. The effect of a predefined set of covariates on Tm was tested by restricted maximum likelihood models.

Results: Compared with baseline, despite unchanged tm (2.7 [2.5-2.8] vs 2.5 [2.2-2.8] mm; P = .31 mm), a significant increase in P (median = 45.8 [26.5-75.8] vs 60.4 [43.1-88.1] mm Hg; P = .017), and r (12.4 [11.5-13.4] vs 18.7 [17.3-19.6] mm; P < .001) resulted in an increase in Tm (233.2 [123.8-303.2] vs 490.8 [286.9-562.4] mN(cm); P < .001) at 12 months after GK implant. Twelve-month follow-up improvements were also observed on Cleveland Clinic FI score (8-point median decrease; P = .0001), St Marks FI score (10-point median decrease; P < .0001), and American Medical Systems score (39-point median decrease; P < .0001). Restricted maximum likelihood models showed that years of onset of FI was negatively associated with change in Tm ( P = .048).

Conclusions: GK-related EAS compression positively influences muscle contractility by increasing r, with consequent increase in Tm (length-tension relationship). Further studies are needed to confirm the long-term effectiveness of GK.

Citing Articles

Systematic Localisation Based on History and Clinical Examination.

Samsudin M, Manokaran T, Ali M, Jamaluddin A, Sashideran D, Ting H Malays J Med Sci. 2025; 31(6):217-256.

PMID: 39830106 PMC: 11740810. DOI: 10.21315/mjms2024.31.6.17.


Gatekeeper™ Prostheses Implants in the Anal Canal for Gas Incontinence and Soiling: Long-Term Follow-Up.

Tur-Martinez J, Lagares-Tena L, Hinojosa-Fano J, Arroyo A, Navarro-Luna A, Munoz-Duyos A J Clin Med. 2024; 13(20).

PMID: 39458106 PMC: 11508701. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13206156.


Clinical effectiveness and safety of self-expandable implantable bulking agents for faecal incontinence: a systematic review.

Gassner L, Wild C, Walter M BMC Gastroenterol. 2022; 22(1):389.

PMID: 35978293 PMC: 9386976. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-022-02441-4.


An evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of Gatekeeper™ intersphincteric implants for passive faecal incontinence.

Jabbar S, Camilleri-Brennan J Tech Coloproctol. 2022; 26(7):537-543.

PMID: 35593969 PMC: 9213285. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-022-02630-z.


Critical appraisal of international guidelines for the management of fecal incontinence in adults: is it possible to define what to do in different clinical scenarios?.

Munoz-Duyos A, Lagares-Tena L, Ribas Y, Baanante J, Navarro-Luna A Tech Coloproctol. 2021; 26(1):1-17.

PMID: 34767095 PMC: 8587500. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-021-02544-2.

References
1.
Malouf A, Norton C, Engel A, Nicholls R, Kamm M . Long-term results of overlapping anterior anal-sphincter repair for obstetric trauma. Lancet. 2000; 355(9200):260-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)05218-6. View

2.
Rockwood T, Church J, Fleshman J, Kane R, Mavrantonis C, Thorson A . Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale: quality of life instrument for patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000; 43(1):9-16; discussion 16-7. DOI: 10.1007/BF02237236. View

3.
Chan C, Scott S, Williams N, Lunniss P . Rectal hypersensitivity worsens stool frequency, urgency, and lifestyle in patients with urge fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005; 48(1):134-40. DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-0774-x. View

4.
Liu J, Guaderrama N, Nager C, Pretorius D, Master S, Mittal R . Functional correlates of anal canal anatomy: puborectalis muscle and anal canal pressure. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(5):1092-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00596.x. View

5.
Rajasekaran M, Jiang Y, Bhargava V, Littlefield R, Lee A, Lieber R . Length-tension relationship of the external anal sphincter muscle: implications for the anal canal function. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2008; 295(2):G367-73. PMC: 2519855. DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00033.2008. View