Literature DB >> 18073008

Safety of prolonged sacral neuromodulation tined lead testing.

Thomas M Kessler1, Fiona C Burkhard, Helmut Madersbacher, Alexandra Kofler, Werner Poewe, Gustav Kiss.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Prolonged sacral neuromodulation (SNM) testing is more reliable for accurate patient selection than the usual test period of 4-7 days. However, prolonged testing was suspected to result in a higher complication rate due to infection via the percutaneous passage of the extension wire. Therefore, we prospectively assessed the complications associated with prolonged tined lead testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 44 patients who underwent prolonged tined lead testing for at least 14 days between May 2002 and April 2007 were evaluated. Complications during prolonged tined lead testing, during and after tined lead explantation and during follow-up after implantation of the implantable pulse generator (IPG) were registered prospectively.
RESULTS: Four patients suffered from urgency-frequency syndrome, 13 from urge incontinence, 18 from non-obstructive chronic urinary retention and nine from chronic pelvic pain syndrome. The median test phase was 30 days (interquartile range [IQR] 21-36). Thirty-two of the 44 patients (73%) had successful prolonged tined lead testing and 31 of these (97%) underwent the implantation of the IPG. The median follow-up of the IPG implanted patients was 31 months (IQR 20-41). The complication rate was 5% (2/44) during prolonged tined lead testing and 16% (5/31) during follow-up of the IPG implanted patients, respectively. None of the complications could be attributed to prolonged testing. No infections were observed during the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, observational non-randomised study suggests prolonged SNM tined lead testing is a safe procedure. Based on the low complication rate and the increased reliability for accurate patient selection, this method is proposed as a possible standard test procedure, subject to confirmation by further randomised, controlled clinical studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18073008     DOI: 10.1185/030079908x253555

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin        ISSN: 0300-7995            Impact factor:   2.580


  10 in total

1.  The overactive bladder.

Authors:  Richard Foon; Marcus J Drake
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2010-08

Review 2.  How does sacral modulation work best? Placement and programming techniques to maximize efficacy.

Authors:  Bastian Amend; Mahmoud Khalil; Thomas M Kessler; Karl-Dietrich Sievert
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Sacral Neuromodulation Implant Infection: Risk Factors and Prevention.

Authors:  Calvin Lee; Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky; Marisa M Clifton; Sandip P Vasavada
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  [Sacral neuromodulation for neurogenic bladder dysfunction].

Authors:  T M Kessler; J Wöllner; M Kozomara; L Mordasini; U Mehnert
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Electrical neuromodulation in the management of lower urinary tract dysfunction: evidence, experience and future prospects.

Authors:  Alejandro Abello; Anurag K Das
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2018-02-22

6.  [Chronic pelvic pain syndrome: neurostimulation, neuromodulation and acupuncture].

Authors:  M Walter; U Sammer; T M Kessler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 7.  Contrasting the percutaneous nerve evaluation versus staged implantation in sacral neuromodulation.

Authors:  Chad Baxter; Ja-Hong Kim
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 8.  Infection Rates of Electrical Leads Used for Percutaneous Neurostimulation of the Peripheral Nervous System.

Authors:  Brian M Ilfeld; Rodney A Gabriel; Michael F Saulino; John Chae; P Hunter Peckham; Stuart A Grant; Christopher A Gilmore; Michael C Donohue; Matthew G deBock; Amorn Wongsarnpigoon; Joseph W Boggs
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 3.183

9.  Differences in sacral neuromodulation device infection rates based on preoperative antibiotic selection.

Authors:  Allen M Haraway; J Quentin Clemens; Chang He; Cynthia Stroup; Humphrey O Atiemo; Anne P Cameron
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Sacral neuromodulation for bowel dysfunction: a consensus statement from the Italian group.

Authors:  E Falletto; E Ganio; G Naldini; C Ratto; D F Altomare
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 3.781

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.