BACKGROUND:Percutaneous, transcutaneous and sham transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was compared in a prospective blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial. METHODS:Patients who had failed conservative treatment for faecal incontinence were randomized to one of three groups: group 1, percutaneous; group 2, transcutaneous; group 3, sham transcutaneous. Patients in groups 1 and 2 received 30-min sessions of posterior tibial nerve stimulation twice weekly for 6 weeks. In group 3, transcutaneous electrodes were placed in position but no stimulation was delivered. Symptoms were measured at baseline and after 6 weeks using a bowel habit diary and St Mark's continence score. Response to treatment was defined as a reduction of at least 50 per cent in weekly episodes of faecal incontinence compared with baseline. RESULTS:Thirty patients (28 women) were enrolled. Nine of 11 patients in group 1, five of 11 in group 2 and one of eight in group 3 had a reduction of at least 50 per cent in weekly episodes of faecal incontinence at the end of the 6-week study phase (P = 0·035). Patients undergoingpercutaneous nerve stimulation had a greater reduction in the number of incontinence episodes and were able to defer defaecation for a longer interval than those undergoing transcutaneous and sham stimulation. These improvements were maintained over a 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION:Posterior tibial nerve stimulation has short-term benefits in treating faecal incontinence. Percutaneous therapy appears to have superior efficacy to stimulation applied by the transcutaneous route. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00530933 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous, transcutaneous and sham transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was compared in a prospective blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial. METHODS:Patients who had failed conservative treatment for faecal incontinence were randomized to one of three groups: group 1, percutaneous; group 2, transcutaneous; group 3, sham transcutaneous. Patients in groups 1 and 2 received 30-min sessions of posterior tibial nerve stimulation twice weekly for 6 weeks. In group 3, transcutaneous electrodes were placed in position but no stimulation was delivered. Symptoms were measured at baseline and after 6 weeks using a bowel habit diary and St Mark's continence score. Response to treatment was defined as a reduction of at least 50 per cent in weekly episodes of faecal incontinence compared with baseline. RESULTS: Thirty patients (28 women) were enrolled. Nine of 11 patients in group 1, five of 11 in group 2 and one of eight in group 3 had a reduction of at least 50 per cent in weekly episodes of faecal incontinence at the end of the 6-week study phase (P = 0·035). Patients undergoing percutaneous nerve stimulation had a greater reduction in the number of incontinence episodes and were able to defer defaecation for a longer interval than those undergoing transcutaneous and sham stimulation. These improvements were maintained over a 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Posterior tibial nerve stimulation has short-term benefits in treating faecal incontinence. Percutaneous therapy appears to have superior efficacy to stimulation applied by the transcutaneous route. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00530933 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
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: William E Whitehead; Satish S C Rao; Ann Lowry; Deborah Nagle; Madhulika Varma; Khalil N Bitar; Adil E Bharucha; Frank A Hamilton Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen; Jonas Worsoe; Lilli Lundby; Peter Christensen; Klaus Krogh Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.409