Regenerative medicine as a therapeutic option for fecal incontinence: a systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies

• Published in: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2019-02, Vol.220 (2), p.142-154.e2
• Main Authors: De Ligny, Wiep R., Kerkhof, Manon H., Ruiz-Zapata, Alejandra M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: animal models; cell therapy; fecal incontinence; human studies; regenerative medicine; scaffolds; tissue engineering; trophic factors
• ISSN: 0002-9378; 1097-6868
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.009

Fecal incontinence is the uncontrollable loss of stool and has a prevalence of around 7-15%. This condition has serious implications for patients’ quality of life. Current treatment options show unsatisfactory results. A novel treatment option is therefore needed. This systematic review aims to perform a quality assessment and to give a critical overview of the current research available on regenerative medicine as a treatment for fecal incontinence. A systematic search strategy was applied in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cinahl from inception until March of 2018. Studies were found relevant when the animals or patients in the studied group had objectively determined or induced fecal incontinence, and the intervention must have used any kind of cells, stem cells, or biocompatible material, with or without the use of trophic factors. Studies were screened on title and consecutively on abstract for relevance by 2 independent investigators. The risk of bias of preclinical studies was assessed using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation risk of bias tool for animal studies, and for clinical studies the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials was used. In all, 34 preclinical studies and 5 clinical studies were included. Animal species, type of anal sphincter injury, intervention, and outcome parameters were heterogenous. Therefore, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was high. The efficacy of regenerative medicine to treat fecal incontinence could not be determined due to the high risk of bias and heterogenicity of the available preclinical and clinical studies. The findings of this systematic review may result in improved study design of future studies, which could help the translation of regenerative medicine to the clinic as an alternative to current treatments for fecal incontinence.