Literature DB >> 21674596

Is sensory testing during lead placement crucial for achieving positive outcomes after sacral neuromodulation?

Kenneth M Peters1, Kim A Killinger, Judith A Boura.   

Abstract

AIMS: Motor and sensory responses help guide lead placement during staged neuromodulation procedures. However, eliciting sensory responses requires lighter anesthesia. We evaluated the impact of assessing sensory responses during quadripolar tined lead placement on outcomes in subjects with refractory voiding symptoms.
METHODS: Adults who had a sacral lead placed were identified from our prospective neuromodulation database and grouped by whether they had intraoperative sensory testing or not. History, operative data, and implantable permanent generator (IPG) implant, lead revision and device explant rates were collected from medical records. Symptoms were evaluated with the Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index/Problem Index (ICSI-PI) and scaled global response assessments (GRA) for the first 24 months post IPG placement. Data were analyzed using Pearson's Chi-square, Fisher's Exact, or Wilcoxon rank test.
RESULTS: Of 141 subjects (82% female), 86 (61%) had sensory testing and 55 (39%) did not. Sensory and no sensory testing groups were not significantly different on demographics, urologic diagnosis, IPG implant rates (76/84; 90% and 48/55; 87% respectively) or mean operative time (37.9 ± 13.9 minutes vs. 35.5 ± 11.6). Within 4 years, 19/141 (13.5%) were revised and/or explanted. For explant alone, 11/86 (13%) in the sensory and only 3/55 (5.5%) in the no sensory group (P = 0.16) were explanted. Overall, ICSI-PI scores improved over time (P < 0.0001) and most reported improvement on the GRA at each time point, but no differences were seen between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative sensory testing during sacral lead placement does not necessarily improve IPG implantation rates or clinical outcomes of neuromodulation.
Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21674596     DOI: 10.1002/nau.21122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn        ISSN: 0733-2467            Impact factor:   2.696


  4 in total

Review 1.  Specific Tips for General Controversies in Sacral Neuromodulation.

Authors:  Ahmed S El-Azab; Steven W Siegel
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Neuromodulation for overactive bladder.

Authors:  Jamie Bartley; Jason Gilleran; Kenneth Peters
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Predictive Factors in Sacral Neuromodulation: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ranjana Jairam; Jamie Drossaerts; Tom Marcelissen; Gommert van Koeveringe; Desiree Vrijens; Philip van Kerrebroeck
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 1.934

4.  Sacral neuromodulation - when and for who.

Authors:  Marcelo Mass-Lindenbaum; D Calderón-Pollak; H B Goldman; Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2021 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.