ISAAC JOSE FELIPPE CORREA NETO

(Fonte: Lattes)
Índice h a partir de 2011
5
Lattes
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Instituto Central, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina

Filtros

Limpar filtros

Configurações

search.filters.applied.f.dateIssued: 2022 ×

Resultados de Busca

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
  • article 1 Citação(ões) na Scopus
    Administration of an Anal Bulking Agent With Polyacrylate-Polyalcohol Copolymer Particles Versus Endoanal Electrical Stimulation With Biofeedback for the Management of Mild and Moderate Anal Incontinence: A Randomized Prospective Study
    (2022) CORREA NETO, Isaac J. F.; PINTO, Rodrigo A.; BRANDAO, Debora G.; BATISTA, Patricia A.; BUSTAMANTE-LOPEZ, Leonardo A.; CECCONELLO, Ivan; NAHAS, Sergio C.
    BACKGROUND: There are few treatment options for mild-to-moderate anal incontinence with isolated internal anal sphincter defects or anal incontinence without muscle damage. Less-invasive techniques are generally favored. OBJECTIVE: To compare the results between the use of an anal bulking agent with polyacrylate-polyalcohol copolymer particles and endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback in patients with mild or moderate anal incontinence. DESIGN: This was a prospective parallel-group, single-institution, randomized clinical trial. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in an ambulatory setting at the Colorectal Physiology Service of the Hospital das Clinicas, Medical School, University of Sao Paulo. PATIENTS: This study included patients who had anal incontinence for >6 months with isolated internal anal sphincter muscle damage or absence of anatomical defects in the anorectal sphincter complex. INTERVENTIONS: Anal bulking agent and endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score, and the secondary outcome measures included quality of life, recommended procedures, and anorectal manometry. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in mean age, sex, BMI, stool consistency, and Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (p = 0.20) at baseline. After 12 months, the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score was found to be significantly improved in patients treated with the bulking agent compared to those treated with electrical stimulation (mean, 6.2 vs 9.2; p = 0.002), though the anorectal manometry parameters did not change significantly. The mean anal Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score declined by 4.2 points in the bulking agent group compared to a decline of 0.8 in the electrical stimulation group (mean difference in decline: 3.4 points; 95% CI, 1.2-5.5). Quality-of life evaluation showed similar results between groups comparing baseline parameters with 12-month follow-up. LIMITATIONS: The short follow-up period of 1 year, atypical method of biofeedback, and unmatched baseline in some of the quality-of-life scales between the 2 groups limited this study. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild or moderate anal incontinence, the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score significantly improved in the bulking agent with polyacrylate-polyalcohol copolymer group compared with the endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback group.