Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_953_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
29 Мб
Скачать
FIGURE16-2AccessorytoolstoimplantanMAS.A.MAS
introducer(insertion)tool.B.MASsizingtool.
p.119
p.120
Therectovaginalseptumiscarefullydissectedfor3−5cmcephalad, awayfromtheanalverge.
Abluntdissectionismadefromeachendoftheperinealincision laterallyanddorsallytocreateaperianaltunnel.Onceatunnelhasbeen fairlywellestablished,theintroducertoolencirclestheanalcanal, workingthroughtheanococcygealligamentusingopposinghandsto meetthetool,guidedwithafinger.
DetermineDeviceSize
Thesizingtool(Fig.16-2B)isputinplacebypullingthesuturethrough theeyeoftheintroducertool.Theintroducertoolisrotated counterclockwisetobringthesizingtoolthroughthetunnel.
Toproperlydeterminethedevicesize,thesizingtoolispulledtosnug theanalcanal.
Thenumberonthesizingtoolindicatesthedevicesizeindicatedbelow thelineshownonthetool.A17-beaddevicewasusedonthepatientin thefigures.
ImplantationoftheDevice
Afterchangingglovesandflushingthewoundwithdilutediodine solution,theselectedMASistakenfromthesterilepackageandbrought throughthetunnelwiththeintroducertoolplacedbackintothetunnel. ThesuturesoftheMASaretemporarilytiedtogetherpriortothe fluoroscopycheckingtoensurethatthesizinghasbeenappropriate.A devicewith1–3beadsopenontheX-raysisconsideredsatisfactory, meaningwellappliedtotheanalcanal.Ifnotso,animplantofasmaller sizehastobeplaced.
SutureloopsattheendsoftheMASarethencarefullytiedtosecurethe device.
Thesubcutaneoustissueoverthedeviceisclosedwithslow-absorbing braided3/0sutureintwolayerswithoutdrainageandafteralastiodine solutionflush.Theskinincisionisclosedsimilarly.
POSTOPERATIVEMANAGEMENT
Thedeviceimmediatelyfunctionswithoutanyinterventionfromthe surgeonorthepatient.Thepatientmayimmediatelyresumearegular diet.Nopost-operativeantibioticsarerequired.Minimalpostoperative painisexpected.Passageofstoolsoonaftertheimplantationisimportant toallowtheconstructionofacapsulearoundtheMASlargeenoughfora completeopeningofthedevice.Therefore,regularpostoperativebowel motionsareencouraged.Laxativesorsuppositoriesmayberequired.

COMPLICATIONS

Inmostreports,therateofcomplicationsleadingtoexplantationfrom infection,erosion,andexstrutionvariesbetween6%and21%.Inarecent 5-yearfollow-upstudy,thedevelopmentofnewdevice-related complicationsafter1yearwasuncommon,indicatingthedevicewas generallysafeinthelongterm.
Otherregisteredadverseeventsmostcommonlybenignnotneeding reoperationincludedefecatorydysfunctionandpain.Theneedfora stomafollowinganMASimplantationisusuallyrelatedtoinefficacyof thedevicetorestorecontinenceratherthantosepsis.

RESULTS

TherapeuticsuccessratesofMASintreatingsevereFIrangedbetween 53%and66%atfollow-upinthelatestpublications.Theinternational feasibilitystudy,startedin2008,reportedon14patientsat6-month follow-upasuccessin80%ofcaseswhenthedevicewasinplaceand 50%whenincluding3patientswhounderwentdeviceexplanation.Ina recentsingle-centerstudyfromGermany,a6-monthtreatmentsuccess rateof76%wasreportedwithaClevelandClinicIncontinenceScore (CCIS)decreasingfrom17.5to7.3pointsandafecalincontinencequality oflifequestionnaireimprovinginallfourdomains.In76%ofthe implantedpatients,boweldiaryresultsshowedagreaterthan50% reductioninthenumberofFIepisodesperweek.Similarmiddle-term resultswereobservedinaFrenchseriesof23patients(Table16-2).
TABLE16-2 ResultsofMASImplantationinaSeriesof23Patients
Typeofstudy
Single-center,prospective,
nonrandomized
Nfemalepatients 23
Medianage(y)(range) 64(35–78)
Medianduration(y)ofFI(range) 8.8(1–40)
CCF-ISscorebaseline 15.2
CCF-ISscoreat6,12,24,and36mo 6.9,7.7,7.8,5.3
FIQoLquestionnairebaseline 1.97
FIQoLquestionnaireat6,12,24,and 36mo
3.19,3.11,2.92,2.93
Explanation 2
Satisfiedpatients 16
Wouldrecommendtootherpatients 14
Inamajorityofthesecaseserieswhenthedeviceiskeptinplace,MAS ledtoasignificantimprovementinFIsymptomsasmeasuredbyCCISfor upto2yearsoffollow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

TheMASappearstobeapromisinginnovation,butundoubtedlythereis alearningcurvewiththistechnology,particularlyinpatientselection. Presently,thesignificanceoftheMASinthetreatmentalgorithmofFIis yettobedetermined.Withalimitednumberofpatientstreatedandonly middle-termfollow-upavailable,itisyettobeobservediftheMAScan withstandthetestoftime.Itisourhopethatthedevicewillagainbe madeavailabletothepatientswhomightbenefitfromMASimplantation.
RECOMMENDEDREFERENCESAND READINGS
BarussaudML,MantooS,WyartV,MeuretteG,LehurPA.Themagneticanalsphincterinfaecal
incontinence:isinitialsuccesssustainedovertime?ColorectalDis2013;15:1499–503. LehurPA,McNevinS,BuntzenS,MellgrenAF,LaurbergS,MadoffRD.Magneticanalsphincter
augmentationforthetreatmentoffecalincontinence:apreliminaryreportfromafeasibility
study.DisColonRectum2010;53:1604–10. LehurPA,WyartV,RicheVP.SaFaRI:sacralnervestimulationversustheFenixmagnetic
sphincteraugmentationforadultfaecalincontinence:arandomisedinvestigation.IntJ
ColorectalDis2016;31:1505. MantooS,MeuretteG,PodevinJ,LehurPA.Themagneticanalsphincter:anewdeviceinthe
managementofseverefecalincontinence.ExpertRevMedDevices2012;9:483–90. PakravanF,HelmesC.Magneticanalsphincteraugmentationinpatientswithseverefecal
incontinence.DisColonRectum2015;58:109–14. WilliamsAE,CroftJ,NappV,CorriganN,etal.SaFaRI:sacralnervestimulationversusthe
FENIXmagneticsphincteraugmentationforadultfaecalincontinence:arandomised
investigation.IntJColorectalDis2016;31:465–72. WongMT,MeuretteG,StangherlinP,LehurPA.Themagneticanalsphincterversustheartificial
bowelsphincter:acomparisonof2treatmentsforfecalincontinence.DisColonRectum
2011;54:773–9. WongMT,MeuretteG,WyartV,LehurPA.Doesthemagneticanalsphincterdevicecompare
favourablywithsacralnervestimulationinthemanagementoffaecalincontinence?Colorectal
Dis2012;14:e323–9.