Ultrasonographic evidence of Gatekeeper™ prosthesis migration in patients treated for faecal incontinence: a case series

Background Faecal incontinence (FI) is both a medical and social problem, with an underestimated incidence. For patients with internal anal sphincter damage, implantation of biomaterial in the anal canal is a recognised treatment option. One such material, Gatekeeper™, has previously shown promising...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of colorectal disease 2017-03, Vol.32 (3), p.437-440
Hauptverfasser: de la Portilla, F, Reyes-Díaz, ML, Maestre, MV, Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM, García-Cabrera, AM, Vázquez-Monchul, JM, Díaz-Pavón, JM, Padillo-Ruiz, FC
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 440
container_issue 3
container_start_page 437
container_title International journal of colorectal disease
container_volume 32
creator de la Portilla, F
Reyes-Díaz, ML
Maestre, MV
Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM
García-Cabrera, AM
Vázquez-Monchul, JM
Díaz-Pavón, JM
Padillo-Ruiz, FC
description Background Faecal incontinence (FI) is both a medical and social problem, with an underestimated incidence. For patients with internal anal sphincter damage, implantation of biomaterial in the anal canal is a recognised treatment option. One such material, Gatekeeper™, has previously shown promising short- and medium-term results without any major complications, including displacement. The main aim of the present study is to assess the degree to which displacement of Gatekeeper prostheses may occur and to determine whether this is associated with patient outcomes. Methods Seven patients (six females) with a mean age of 55.6 years [50.5–57.2] and a mean FI duration of 6 ± 2 years were prospectively enrolled in the study. Each subject was anaesthetised and underwent implantation of six prostheses in the intersphincteric region, guided by endoanal 3D ultrasound (3D-EAU). Follow-up was performed at post-interventional months 1, 3, and 12 (median 12 ± 4 months), during which data were obtained from a defaecation diary, Wexner scale assessment, anorectal manometry (ARM), 3D-EAU, and a health status and quality of life questionnaire (FIQL). Results At 3-month follow-up, 3D-EAU revealed displacement of 24/42 prostheses in 5/7 patients. Of these, 15 had migrated to the lower portion and 9 to the upper portion of the anal canal and rectum. Despite this migration, treatment was considered successful in 3/7 patients. In one patient, it was necessary to remove a prosthesis due to spontaneous extrusion. Conclusions We have shown that displacement of the Gatekeeper™ prosthesis occurs, but is not associated with poorer clinical outcomes.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00384-016-2742-z
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1855789858</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A714489373</galeid><sourcerecordid>A714489373</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-7292cb4c6944562f0c89f83120842396f4b2363d579c29ed11dfa1df4384379e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS0EokPhAdggS2zYpPgvic2uqqAgVWJD15bHuZ66JHawM5WYNU_SR-uTcEdTKkAgy_Lfd66uzyHkJWcnnLH-bWVMatUw3jWiV6LZPSIrrqRouOjEY7JivDcNN60-Is9qvWZ47nr1lBwJzVrFpVqR3eW4FFdzypvi5qvoKdzEAZIHmgM9dwt8BZih3P24pXPJdbmCGiudIuJLzInGRGfcQVoqXQqgYKAhFxoceDfis89piWlf8R111LsKtEKJUJ-TJ8GNFV7cr8fk8sP7L2cfm4vP55_OTi8ar6RZml4Y4dfKd0apthOBeW2CllwwrYQ0XVBrITs5tL3xwsDA-RAcToXWyN6APCZvDnWx_29bqIudYvUwji5B3lbLddv22uhWI_r6L_Q6b0vC7pDqTNdpgbY9UBs3go0pZLTQ74va054rpY3sJVIn_6BwDDBFNAVCxPs_BPwg8OhzLRDsXOLkynfLmd3nbQ95W8zb7vO2O9S8um94u55geFD8ChgBcQAqPqUNlN9-9N-qPwEpL7YR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1869668241</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ultrasonographic evidence of Gatekeeper™ prosthesis migration in patients treated for faecal incontinence: a case series</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>de la Portilla, F ; Reyes-Díaz, ML ; Maestre, MV ; Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM ; García-Cabrera, AM ; Vázquez-Monchul, JM ; Díaz-Pavón, JM ; Padillo-Ruiz, FC</creator><creatorcontrib>de la Portilla, F ; Reyes-Díaz, ML ; Maestre, MV ; Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM ; García-Cabrera, AM ; Vázquez-Monchul, JM ; Díaz-Pavón, JM ; Padillo-Ruiz, FC</creatorcontrib><description>Background Faecal incontinence (FI) is both a medical and social problem, with an underestimated incidence. For patients with internal anal sphincter damage, implantation of biomaterial in the anal canal is a recognised treatment option. One such material, Gatekeeper™, has previously shown promising short- and medium-term results without any major complications, including displacement. The main aim of the present study is to assess the degree to which displacement of Gatekeeper prostheses may occur and to determine whether this is associated with patient outcomes. Methods Seven patients (six females) with a mean age of 55.6 years [50.5–57.2] and a mean FI duration of 6 ± 2 years were prospectively enrolled in the study. Each subject was anaesthetised and underwent implantation of six prostheses in the intersphincteric region, guided by endoanal 3D ultrasound (3D-EAU). Follow-up was performed at post-interventional months 1, 3, and 12 (median 12 ± 4 months), during which data were obtained from a defaecation diary, Wexner scale assessment, anorectal manometry (ARM), 3D-EAU, and a health status and quality of life questionnaire (FIQL). Results At 3-month follow-up, 3D-EAU revealed displacement of 24/42 prostheses in 5/7 patients. Of these, 15 had migrated to the lower portion and 9 to the upper portion of the anal canal and rectum. Despite this migration, treatment was considered successful in 3/7 patients. In one patient, it was necessary to remove a prosthesis due to spontaneous extrusion. Conclusions We have shown that displacement of the Gatekeeper™ prosthesis occurs, but is not associated with poorer clinical outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0179-1958</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1262</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00384-016-2742-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28054134</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Biological products ; Care and treatment ; Fecal Incontinence - diagnostic imaging ; Fecal Incontinence - surgery ; Female ; Gastroenterology ; Health surveys ; Hepatology ; Humans ; Implants, Artificial ; Incontinence ; Internal Medicine ; Male ; Manometry ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Proctology ; Prostheses and Implants ; Prosthesis ; Prosthesis Failure ; Quality of Life ; Rapid Communication ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome ; Ultrasonography</subject><ispartof>International journal of colorectal disease, 2017-03, Vol.32 (3), p.437-440</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Springer</rights><rights>International Journal of Colorectal Disease is a copyright of Springer, 2017.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-7292cb4c6944562f0c89f83120842396f4b2363d579c29ed11dfa1df4384379e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-7292cb4c6944562f0c89f83120842396f4b2363d579c29ed11dfa1df4384379e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00384-016-2742-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00384-016-2742-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28054134$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>de la Portilla, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reyes-Díaz, ML</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maestre, MV</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Cabrera, AM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vázquez-Monchul, JM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Díaz-Pavón, JM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padillo-Ruiz, FC</creatorcontrib><title>Ultrasonographic evidence of Gatekeeper™ prosthesis migration in patients treated for faecal incontinence: a case series</title><title>International journal of colorectal disease</title><addtitle>Int J Colorectal Dis</addtitle><addtitle>Int J Colorectal Dis</addtitle><description>Background Faecal incontinence (FI) is both a medical and social problem, with an underestimated incidence. For patients with internal anal sphincter damage, implantation of biomaterial in the anal canal is a recognised treatment option. One such material, Gatekeeper™, has previously shown promising short- and medium-term results without any major complications, including displacement. The main aim of the present study is to assess the degree to which displacement of Gatekeeper prostheses may occur and to determine whether this is associated with patient outcomes. Methods Seven patients (six females) with a mean age of 55.6 years [50.5–57.2] and a mean FI duration of 6 ± 2 years were prospectively enrolled in the study. Each subject was anaesthetised and underwent implantation of six prostheses in the intersphincteric region, guided by endoanal 3D ultrasound (3D-EAU). Follow-up was performed at post-interventional months 1, 3, and 12 (median 12 ± 4 months), during which data were obtained from a defaecation diary, Wexner scale assessment, anorectal manometry (ARM), 3D-EAU, and a health status and quality of life questionnaire (FIQL). Results At 3-month follow-up, 3D-EAU revealed displacement of 24/42 prostheses in 5/7 patients. Of these, 15 had migrated to the lower portion and 9 to the upper portion of the anal canal and rectum. Despite this migration, treatment was considered successful in 3/7 patients. In one patient, it was necessary to remove a prosthesis due to spontaneous extrusion. Conclusions We have shown that displacement of the Gatekeeper™ prosthesis occurs, but is not associated with poorer clinical outcomes.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biological products</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Fecal Incontinence - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Fecal Incontinence - surgery</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Health surveys</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implants, Artificial</subject><subject>Incontinence</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manometry</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Proctology</subject><subject>Prostheses and Implants</subject><subject>Prosthesis</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Rapid Communication</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><issn>0179-1958</issn><issn>1432-1262</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhS0EokPhAdggS2zYpPgvic2uqqAgVWJD15bHuZ66JHawM5WYNU_SR-uTcEdTKkAgy_Lfd66uzyHkJWcnnLH-bWVMatUw3jWiV6LZPSIrrqRouOjEY7JivDcNN60-Is9qvWZ47nr1lBwJzVrFpVqR3eW4FFdzypvi5qvoKdzEAZIHmgM9dwt8BZih3P24pXPJdbmCGiudIuJLzInGRGfcQVoqXQqgYKAhFxoceDfis89piWlf8R111LsKtEKJUJ-TJ8GNFV7cr8fk8sP7L2cfm4vP55_OTi8ar6RZml4Y4dfKd0apthOBeW2CllwwrYQ0XVBrITs5tL3xwsDA-RAcToXWyN6APCZvDnWx_29bqIudYvUwji5B3lbLddv22uhWI_r6L_Q6b0vC7pDqTNdpgbY9UBs3go0pZLTQ74va054rpY3sJVIn_6BwDDBFNAVCxPs_BPwg8OhzLRDsXOLkynfLmd3nbQ95W8zb7vO2O9S8um94u55geFD8ChgBcQAqPqUNlN9-9N-qPwEpL7YR</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>de la Portilla, F</creator><creator>Reyes-Díaz, ML</creator><creator>Maestre, MV</creator><creator>Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM</creator><creator>García-Cabrera, AM</creator><creator>Vázquez-Monchul, JM</creator><creator>Díaz-Pavón, JM</creator><creator>Padillo-Ruiz, FC</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>Ultrasonographic evidence of Gatekeeper™ prosthesis migration in patients treated for faecal incontinence: a case series</title><author>de la Portilla, F ; Reyes-Díaz, ML ; Maestre, MV ; Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM ; García-Cabrera, AM ; Vázquez-Monchul, JM ; Díaz-Pavón, JM ; Padillo-Ruiz, FC</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-7292cb4c6944562f0c89f83120842396f4b2363d579c29ed11dfa1df4384379e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biological products</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Fecal Incontinence - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Fecal Incontinence - surgery</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Health surveys</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implants, Artificial</topic><topic>Incontinence</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manometry</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Proctology</topic><topic>Prostheses and Implants</topic><topic>Prosthesis</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Rapid Communication</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>de la Portilla, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reyes-Díaz, ML</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maestre, MV</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García-Cabrera, AM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vázquez-Monchul, JM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Díaz-Pavón, JM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Padillo-Ruiz, FC</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>International journal of colorectal disease</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>de la Portilla, F</au><au>Reyes-Díaz, ML</au><au>Maestre, MV</au><au>Jiménez-Rodríguez, RM</au><au>García-Cabrera, AM</au><au>Vázquez-Monchul, JM</au><au>Díaz-Pavón, JM</au><au>Padillo-Ruiz, FC</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ultrasonographic evidence of Gatekeeper™ prosthesis migration in patients treated for faecal incontinence: a case series</atitle><jtitle>International journal of colorectal disease</jtitle><stitle>Int J Colorectal Dis</stitle><addtitle>Int J Colorectal Dis</addtitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>437</spage><epage>440</epage><pages>437-440</pages><issn>0179-1958</issn><eissn>1432-1262</eissn><abstract>Background Faecal incontinence (FI) is both a medical and social problem, with an underestimated incidence. For patients with internal anal sphincter damage, implantation of biomaterial in the anal canal is a recognised treatment option. One such material, Gatekeeper™, has previously shown promising short- and medium-term results without any major complications, including displacement. The main aim of the present study is to assess the degree to which displacement of Gatekeeper prostheses may occur and to determine whether this is associated with patient outcomes. Methods Seven patients (six females) with a mean age of 55.6 years [50.5–57.2] and a mean FI duration of 6 ± 2 years were prospectively enrolled in the study. Each subject was anaesthetised and underwent implantation of six prostheses in the intersphincteric region, guided by endoanal 3D ultrasound (3D-EAU). Follow-up was performed at post-interventional months 1, 3, and 12 (median 12 ± 4 months), during which data were obtained from a defaecation diary, Wexner scale assessment, anorectal manometry (ARM), 3D-EAU, and a health status and quality of life questionnaire (FIQL). Results At 3-month follow-up, 3D-EAU revealed displacement of 24/42 prostheses in 5/7 patients. Of these, 15 had migrated to the lower portion and 9 to the upper portion of the anal canal and rectum. Despite this migration, treatment was considered successful in 3/7 patients. In one patient, it was necessary to remove a prosthesis due to spontaneous extrusion. Conclusions We have shown that displacement of the Gatekeeper™ prosthesis occurs, but is not associated with poorer clinical outcomes.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>28054134</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00384-016-2742-z</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0179-1958
ispartof International journal of colorectal disease, 2017-03, Vol.32 (3), p.437-440
issn 0179-1958
1432-1262
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1855789858
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Analysis
Biological products
Care and treatment
Fecal Incontinence - diagnostic imaging
Fecal Incontinence - surgery
Female
Gastroenterology
Health surveys
Hepatology
Humans
Implants, Artificial
Incontinence
Internal Medicine
Male
Manometry
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Proctology
Prostheses and Implants
Prosthesis
Prosthesis Failure
Quality of Life
Rapid Communication
Surgery
Treatment Outcome
Ultrasonography
title Ultrasonographic evidence of Gatekeeper™ prosthesis migration in patients treated for faecal incontinence: a case series
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T00%3A09%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ultrasonographic%20evidence%20of%20Gatekeeper%E2%84%A2%20prosthesis%20migration%20in%20patients%20treated%20for%20faecal%20incontinence:%20a%20case%20series&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20colorectal%20disease&rft.au=de%20la%20Portilla,%20F&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=437&rft.epage=440&rft.pages=437-440&rft.issn=0179-1958&rft.eissn=1432-1262&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00384-016-2742-z&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA714489373%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1869668241&rft_id=info:pmid/28054134&rft_galeid=A714489373&rfr_iscdi=true