Sphincteroplasty for fecal incontinence in the era of sacral nerve modulation

Table 1 Effects of pudendal neuropathy on the outcome of sphincteroplasty for fecal incontinence

Author	n	Success without neuropathy (%)	Success with neuropathy (%)	P value
Laurberg et al[5], 1988	19	42	5	< 0.05
Londono-Schimmer et al[6], 1994	94	60	14	< 0.001
Sitzler et al[7], 1996	29	48	24	< 0.05
Chen et al[8], 1998	12	75	50	< 0.05
Gilliland et al[9], 1998	77	62	17	< 0.01

Table 2 Short term outcome after sphincteroplasty for fecal incontinence

Author	n	Obstetric/surgery	Results (%) excellent/good	Fair	Poor
Fleshman et al[20], 1991	55	100	72	22	6
Wexner et al[21], 1991	16	100	76	19	5
Engel et al[22], 1994	55	100	79	-	21
Oliveira et al[23], 1996	55	99	71	9	20
Felt-Bersma et al[24], 1996	18	94	72	-	28
Nikiteas et al[3], 1996	42	88	60	17	24
Sitzler et al[7], 1996	31	87	74	-	26
Ternent et al[25], 1997	16	100	44	31	25
Zorcolo et al[26], 2005	93	100	65	9	27
Barisic et al[27], 2006	65	86	74	17	9

Table 3 Long term outcome after sphincteroplasty for fecal incontinence

Author	n	Median FU (mo)	Results (%) excellent/good	Fair	Poor
Pezim et al[28], 1987	40	67	62	-	38
Londono-Schimmer et al[6], 1994	94	59	50	26	24
Malouf et al[29], 2000	46	77	50
Halverson et al[30], 2002	49	69	14	32	54
Vaizey et al[31], 2004	21		52	10	38
Bravo Gutierrez et al[32], 2004	130	120	22	19	57
Zorcolo et al[26], 2005	62	70	45	10	45
Barisic et al[27], 2006	65	80	48	13	39
Maslekar et al[33], 2007	64	84	80		20
Oom et al[34], 2009	120	111	38	23	40

Table 4 Long term outcome after sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence

Author	n	Success (%)	Length of follow-up (yr)
El-Gazzaz et al[45], 2009	22	42	2.5
Altomare et al[46], 2009	52	62	7
Matzel et al[47], 2009	12	75	9
Vallet et al[48], 2010	32	53	3