PURPOSE: Neuromodulation therapies have been used with success in patients with fecal incontinence. Intermittent percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation is a new, minimally invasive treatment option for these patients. This study was designed to evaluate the results of intermittent percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in patients with fecal incontinence. METHODS: Sixteen patients (11 females; mean age, 59 +/- 7.9 years) with severe fecal incontinence were treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation. All patients completed a defecation diary, the Wexner Fecal Continence Scale, a fecal incontinence quality-of-life questionnaire, and a visual analog scale before treatment and during each phase of the study. Endoluminal ultrasound and anorectal physiologic studies were also performed in each patient. RESULTS: Continence was improved in 10 of 16 patients after the first phase. Six patients did not continue to the second phase of treatment because of a lack of initial response. During the second phase, 7 of 16 continued to show improvement. After a six-month period without any treatment, 5 of 16 continued to have good continence. Overall, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation significantly improved fecal continence. The Wexner score improved from a mean of 13.2 +/- 4.1 at baseline to 9 +/- 5.2 at the end of the first phase (P < 0.0005), to 8 +/- 5.7 at the end of the second phase (P = 0.001), and to 9.1 +/- 5 after 6 months without treatment (P = 0.001). Significant improvement was observed in three main domains of the fecal incontinence quality-of-life scale: coping/behavior, depression, and embarrassment. Scores on the visual analog scale improved from a mean of 4.6 +/- 1.5 at baseline to 7 +/- 2.5 at the end of the first phase (P = 0.002) and to 7.2 +/- 2.5 after 6 months without treatment (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation is a minimally invasive and effective treatment option for patients with fecal incontinence.
PURPOSE: Neuromodulation therapies have been used with success in patients with fecal incontinence. Intermittent percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation is a new, minimally invasive treatment option for these patients. This study was designed to evaluate the results of intermittent percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in patients with fecal incontinence. METHODS: Sixteen patients (11 females; mean age, 59 +/- 7.9 years) with severe fecal incontinence were treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation. All patients completed a defecation diary, the Wexner Fecal Continence Scale, a fecal incontinence quality-of-life questionnaire, and a visual analog scale before treatment and during each phase of the study. Endoluminal ultrasound and anorectal physiologic studies were also performed in each patient. RESULTS: Continence was improved in 10 of 16 patients after the first phase. Six patients did not continue to the second phase of treatment because of a lack of initial response. During the second phase, 7 of 16 continued to show improvement. After a six-month period without any treatment, 5 of 16 continued to have good continence. Overall, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation significantly improved fecal continence. The Wexner score improved from a mean of 13.2 +/- 4.1 at baseline to 9 +/- 5.2 at the end of the first phase (P < 0.0005), to 8 +/- 5.7 at the end of the second phase (P = 0.001), and to 9.1 +/- 5 after 6 months without treatment (P = 0.001). Significant improvement was observed in three main domains of the fecal incontinence quality-of-life scale: coping/behavior, depression, and embarrassment. Scores on the visual analog scale improved from a mean of 4.6 +/- 1.5 at baseline to 7 +/- 2.5 at the end of the first phase (P = 0.002) and to 7.2 +/- 2.5 after 6 months without treatment (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation is a minimally invasive and effective treatment option for patients with fecal incontinence.
Authors: R Vera; J Aparicio; F Carballo; M Esteva; E González-Flores; J Santianes; F Santolaya; J M Fernández-Cebrián Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: John M Findlay; Justin M C Yeung; Rachel Robinson; Helen Greaves; Charles Maxwell-Armstrong Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Andreas M Kaiser; Guy R Orangio; Massarat Zutshi; Suraj Alva; Tracy L Hull; Peter W Marcello; David A Margolin; Janice F Rafferty; W Donald Buie; Steven D Wexner Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: R Rodríguez Carrillo; M D Ruiz Carmona; R Alós Company; A Frangi Caregnato; M Alarcón Iranzo; A Solana Bueno; R Lozoya Trujillo; E García-Granero Ximénez Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Alexander Hotouras; Jamie Murphy; Marion Allison; Anne Curry; Norman S Williams; Charles H Knowles; Christopher L Chan Journal: Surg Today Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: V Vigorita; S Rausei; P Troncoso Pereira; I Trostchansky; A Ruano Poblador; E Moncada Iribarren; C Facal Alvarez; A de San Ildefonso Pereira; E Casal Núñez Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 3.781