Outcomes of Reimplantation of the Artificial Bowel Sphincter.

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of artificial bowel sphincter reimplantation for severe fecal incontinence remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of artificial bowel sphincter reimplantation versus implantation.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review study.

SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a single institution.

PATIENTS: Patients with severe incontinence who underwent de novo implantation and re-implantation between January 1998 and December 2012 were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications, length of functional device time, success rates (functioning device at follow-up), patient demographics, comorbidities, etiology of incontinence, operative data, postoperative complications, and outcomes of initial implantation versus reimplantation were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients (mean age, 49.3 ± 13.5 years; 44 women) underwent implantation. Sixteen (28%) succeeded and 41 (72%) failed, requiring explantation; 17 of 41 patients underwent reimplantation; 5 had 2 reimplantations. There were 79 implantations and 50 explantations (63.3%) in total. Implantation and reimplantation procedures had similar lengths of operation, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and explantation rate. Most common reasons for device explantation were infection/erosion (27/50 (54%)) and malfunction (19/50 (38%)). Reasons for reimplantation included device malfunction/migration (17/22 (77.3%)) and/or infection/erosion (5/22 (22.7%)). Seven (41.2%) of 17 patients for whom reimplantation was attributed to noninfectious reasons had a functioning device, whereas only 1 (20.0%) of 5 who had reimplantation because of infection/erosion had a working device. At a median follow-up of 29.5 months (range, 1.0-215.0 months), 24 patients (42%) retained a functioning device (implantation = 16; reimplantation = 8). Success rates were not significantly different between initial implantation and reimplantation procedures (p = 0.755). There were no differences in the length of functional device time between implanted and reimplanted devices (p = 0.439).

LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial bowel sphincter implantation has a high failure rate, requiring explantation in 72% of patients in this study. Reimplantation was often possible, with a success rate of 47%. Selected reimplantation for noninfectious complications had better outcomes than did reimplantation for septic causes. Short- and long-term outcomes are comparable to initial implantation.