Taylor & Francis Group
Browse
1/1
19 files

A systematic review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for faecal incontinence in adults

dataset
posted on 2019-01-15, 10:25 authored by Nikhil Lal, Constantinos Simillis, Alistair Slesser, Christos Kontovounisios, Shahnawaz Rasheed, Paris P. Tekkis, Emile Tan

Aim: To perform a review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for faecal incontinence (FI) in adults.

Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify RCTs reporting on treatments for FI.

Results: The review included 60 RCTs reporting on 4838 patients with a mean age ranging from 36.8 to 88 years. From the included RCTs, 32 did not identify a significant difference between the treatments compared. Contradictory results were identified in RCTs comparing percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham stimulation, biofeedback-pelvic floor muscle training (BF-PFMT) versus PFMT, and between bulking agents such as PTQTM versus Durasphere®. In two separate RCTs, combination treatment of amplitude-modulated medium frequency stimulation and electromyography-biofeedback (EMG-BF), was noted to be superior to EMG-BF and low-frequency electrical stimulation alone. Combination of non-surgical treatments such as BF with sphincteroplasty significantly improved continence scores compared to sphincteroplasty alone. Surgical treatments were associated with higher rates of serious adverse events compared to non-surgical interventions.

Conclusions: The current evidence has not identified significant differences between treatments for FI, and where differences were identified, the results were contradictory between RCTs.

History

Usage metrics

    Acta Chirurgica Belgica

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC