Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Perianal injectable bulking agents as treatment for faecal incontinence in adults

  1. Yasuko Maeda1,*,
  2. Søren Laurberg2,
  3. Christine Norton3

Editorial Group: Cochrane Incontinence Group

Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007959.pub3


How to Cite

Maeda Y, Laurberg S, Norton C. Perianal injectable bulking agents as treatment for faecal incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD007959. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007959.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    St Mark's Hospital, Sir Alan Park's Physiology Unit, Harrow, UK

  2. 2

    Aarhus University Hospital, Department of Surgery, Aarhus, Denmark

  3. 3

    King's College London & Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK

*Yasuko Maeda, Sir Alan Park's Physiology Unit, St Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, Watford Road, Harrow, UK. yazmaeda@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (conclusions changed)
  2. Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. PRISMA study flow diagram,
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Injectable versus placebo injection, Outcome 1 Failure (number of participants with Wexner's >8).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Injectable versus placebo injection, Outcome 2 No improvement (less than 50% reduction in incontinence episodes.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Injectable versus placebo injection, Outcome 3 Number of participants wearing pads every day.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Injectable versus placebo injection, Outcome 4 Number of incontinence free days at 6 months.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Injectable versus placebo injection, Outcome 5 Wexner score (mean).
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Injectable versus placebo injection, Outcome 6 Number of adverse effects.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Injectable versus placebo injection, Outcome 7 Serious adverse effects.
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Injectable versus placebo injection, Outcome 8 Need for re-treatment at 6 months.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 One injectable material versus another, Outcome 1 Failure (number with worse faecal incontinence).
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 One injectable material versus another, Outcome 2 Wexner's incontinence score.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 One injectable material versus another, Outcome 3 Quality of life index (lifestyle) at 6 months.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 One injectable material versus another, Outcome 4 Adverse effects.
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 One injectable material versus another, Outcome 5 Serious adverse effects.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 One method of injection versus another, Outcome 1 Failure (number of participants with Wexner's score <50% improved).
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 One method of injection versus another, Outcome 2 Failure (number of participants global Quality of Life score <50% improved).
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 One method of injection versus another, Outcome 3 Quality of life index (lifestyle) at 6 months.
[Analysis 3.4]
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 One method of injection versus another, Outcome 4 Discomfort at injection site.
[Analysis 3.5]
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 One method of injection versus another, Outcome 5 Adverse effects.