Literature DB >> 19617755

Can sensory and/or motor reactions during percutaneous nerve evaluation predict outcome of sacral nerve modulation?

B Govaert1, J Melenhorst, W G van Gemert, C G Baeten.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A major advantage of sacral nerve modulation in the treatment of fecal incontinence is the ability to determine the likely treatment outcome before implantation by means of a percutaneous nerve evaluation and a test stimulation period. This study evaluated the predictive value of both sensory and motor responses during percutaneous nerve evaluation for determining the outcome of subchronic test stimulation and permanent stimulation.
METHODS: All percutaneous nerve evaluation procedures performed between 2000 and 2007 were analyzed. Two hundred eight procedures (194 females; mean age, 56.7 years) were included in this study. Correct needle placement was confirmed by typical S-3 sensory and/or motor responses. The sensory and motor responses during the procedure were analyzed in relation to the outcomes of the test stimulation and permanent stimulation.
RESULTS: In all, 72.6% of patients had a successful subchronic test stimulation. A total of 13.9% had no motor response. There was no significant difference in outcome between the group with only sensory responses and the group with both sensory and motor responses (P = 0.89; odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-2.43). Correlation with permanent implantation showed no significant difference between both groups in outcome (P = 0.53; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.41).
CONCLUSION: Positive motor responses during percutaneous nerve evaluation are highly predictive of a successful outcome of subchronic test stimulation and permanent sacral nerve modulation. Sensory responses also have the same predictive value. For this reason, percutaneous nerve evaluation preferably should be performed in awake patients under local anesthesia to avoid missing those who may benefit from permanent stimulation but who do not have a motor response during the procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19617755     DOI: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a91241

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  5 in total

1.  Temporary sacral neuromodulation under local anaesthesia using new anatomical reference points.

Authors:  S Prapasrivorakul; K J Gorissen; M P Gosselink; K Curran; O M Jones; C Cunningham; I Lindsey; R Hompes
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2014-08-24       Impact factor: 3.781

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

3.  Sacral neuromodulation: troubleshooting needle placement.

Authors:  Whitney K Hendrickson; Cindy L Amundsen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Troubleshooting sacral neuromodulation issues.

Authors:  Maude E Carmel; Sandip P Vasavada; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  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

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.