TY - JOUR
T1 - Experimental model of pudendal nerve innervation of a skeletal muscle neosphincter for faecal incontinence
AU - Congilosi, S. M.
AU - Johnson, D. R.E.
AU - Medot, M.
AU - Tretinyak, A.
AU - McCormick, S. R.
AU - Wong, W. D.
AU - Rothenberger, David A
AU - Madoff, Robert D
PY - 1997
Y1 - 1997
N2 - Background: Faecal incontinence is difficult to treat. A variety of reconstructive procedures has been described, but none is entirely satisfactory. This study evaluated the feasibility of cross-innervating a skeletal muscle neosphincter with the pudendal nerve in a canine model. Methods: Thirty dogs were rendered surgically incontinent (the pudendal nerve was cut and the external sphincter was partially excised). A neosphincter was then created using the semitendinosus muscle. In ten dogs pudendal nerve transposition (PNT) to the nerve to the semitendinosus muscle was performed. Ten dogs were given a dynamic neosphincter by inserting a pulse generator aT 6 weeks. The remaining ten dogs served as controls with passive semitendinosus wraps. Anal manometry was performed before operation and monthly for 5 months. Muscle biopsies, performed at the initial operation and at 5 months, were stained for slow- and fast-twitch fibres, and were examined histologically. Results: At 1 month, mean sphincter function was 32 per cent of the preoperative value in the control animals, 34 per cent in the PNT group and 27 per cent in the electrostimulation group; all dogs were incontinent. At 5 months the mean recovery of sphincter function was 42 per cent of the preoperative value in controls, 100 per cent in dogs with PNT (P<0·001) and 63 per cent in dogs having electrostimulation (stimulator on) (P = 0·02). Six dogs with PNT had squeeze pressures equal to or greater than preoperative levels. At 5 months the ratio of slow to fast fibres was significantly greater in all dogs (control P = 0·01, PNT P < 0·005, electrostimulation P < 0·001). Conclusion: Use of the pudendal nerve to innervate a canine skeletal muscle anal wrap produced a functional anal sphincter that was superior to electrically stimulated and passive wraps.
AB - Background: Faecal incontinence is difficult to treat. A variety of reconstructive procedures has been described, but none is entirely satisfactory. This study evaluated the feasibility of cross-innervating a skeletal muscle neosphincter with the pudendal nerve in a canine model. Methods: Thirty dogs were rendered surgically incontinent (the pudendal nerve was cut and the external sphincter was partially excised). A neosphincter was then created using the semitendinosus muscle. In ten dogs pudendal nerve transposition (PNT) to the nerve to the semitendinosus muscle was performed. Ten dogs were given a dynamic neosphincter by inserting a pulse generator aT 6 weeks. The remaining ten dogs served as controls with passive semitendinosus wraps. Anal manometry was performed before operation and monthly for 5 months. Muscle biopsies, performed at the initial operation and at 5 months, were stained for slow- and fast-twitch fibres, and were examined histologically. Results: At 1 month, mean sphincter function was 32 per cent of the preoperative value in the control animals, 34 per cent in the PNT group and 27 per cent in the electrostimulation group; all dogs were incontinent. At 5 months the mean recovery of sphincter function was 42 per cent of the preoperative value in controls, 100 per cent in dogs with PNT (P<0·001) and 63 per cent in dogs having electrostimulation (stimulator on) (P = 0·02). Six dogs with PNT had squeeze pressures equal to or greater than preoperative levels. At 5 months the ratio of slow to fast fibres was significantly greater in all dogs (control P = 0·01, PNT P < 0·005, electrostimulation P < 0·001). Conclusion: Use of the pudendal nerve to innervate a canine skeletal muscle anal wrap produced a functional anal sphincter that was superior to electrically stimulated and passive wraps.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030757728&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030757728&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/bjs.1800840921
DO - 10.1002/bjs.1800840921
M3 - Article
C2 - 9313711
AN - SCOPUS:0030757728
SN - 0007-1323
VL - 84
SP - 1269
EP - 1273
JO - British Journal of Surgery
JF - British Journal of Surgery
IS - 9
ER -