Cargando…

Unstimulated Gluteus Maximus Sphincteroplasty for Bowel Incontinence

Background  Gluteus maximus, by virtue of its continued adjunct contraction with the anal sphincter, has many characteristics and histomorphological features mimicking type I musculature. Hence, anal sphincter replacement therapy with gluteus maximus has all avenues for lasting successful results. T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Balakrishnan, Thalaivirithan Margabandu, Yanamadala, Snigdha, Janardhanam, Jaganmohan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 2022
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10049812/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36998924
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1759499
Descripción
Sumario:Background  Gluteus maximus, by virtue of its continued adjunct contraction with the anal sphincter, has many characteristics and histomorphological features mimicking type I musculature. Hence, anal sphincter replacement therapy with gluteus maximus has all avenues for lasting successful results. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of unstimulated gluteus maximus sphincteroplasty for anal incontinence reconstruction and neosphincter reconstruction in perineal colostomy cases. Methods  From March 2015 to March 2020, the records of patients who underwent gluteus maximus sphincteroplasty for fecal incontinence were analyzed in this retrospective cohort study. The mean age was 31.55 years. Eleven patients (females = 4, males = 7) underwent anal incontinence reconstruction. All these cases were followed up for an average period of 28.46 months. Results  Good continence was observed in all patients with an average Cleveland Clinic Florida Faecal Incontinence Score of 3.18 ( p  = 0.0035). At the end of the follow-up period, the average median resting pressure found via manometry was 44.64 mm Hg, and the average median squeeze pressure was 103.55mm Hg. The mean of the average continence contraction time at the end of the follow-up period was found to be 3.64 minutes. None of our patients had complete continence failure. None of our patients used perineal pads or made any lifestyle alterations at the end of the follow-up period. Most of the patients expressed satisfactory continence. Conclusion  Despite being untrained with implantable electrodes, the gluteus maximus muscle produced very good continence results with our way of construct. In addition, with its good lumen occluding effect, it achieves good resting and squeeze anal pressure around the anal canal/bowel with trivial reeducation. Hence, it has become our institution's procedure of choice for anal sphincter reconstruction.