Literature DB >> 25850568

Number of active electrodes at time of staged tined lead interstim implant does not impact clinical outcomes.

Jason P Gilleran1, Kim Killinger1, Judith Boura1, Kenneth M Peters1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine: (1) if obtaining motor response on <4 tined lead electrodes at time of placement affects subjective and objective clinical outcome and (2) voltage requirements to elicit motor response at implant and first postoperative visit number based on number of responding electrodes.
METHODS: We reviewed our prospective neuromodulation database to identify patients with unilateral S3 lead placement and motor response (bellows ± toe flexion) on stimulation of 1-4 electrodes, then grouped by number of active electrodes at lead placement. Stage 1 success, reoperation and reprogramming rates, mean voltage at implant and first postoperative visit, and Interstitial Cystitis Symptom/Problem Indices (ICSI-PI) were analyzed using Pearson's Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon rank tests.
RESULTS: Two hundred forty four patients met inclusion criteria, categorized into 1-2 (n = 25), 3 (n = 48), and 4 active electrodes (n = 171). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of age, indications for neuromodulation, or stage 1 success. At implant, patients with <4 active electrodes required higher mean voltages for motor responses (5.9, 4.9, and 3.9 volts for each group respectively; P < 0.0001). Mean voltages for sensory threshold at first postoperative programming were 1.5 ± 1.5, 0.9 ± 1.0, and 0.8 ± 1.0, respectively (P = 0.08). Overall reoperation rates, and reprogramming sessions at 24 months did not differ (P = 0.72 and P = 0.50). ICSI-PI scores improved similarly in all groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Motor response on four electrodes is not necessary for successful stage 1 trial. Despite higher voltage requirements in those with <4 active electrodes at implant, this difference was not observed at initial postoperative programming. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:625-629, 2016.
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  electrodes; incontinence; outcomes; questionnaires; sacral neuromodulation; surgical technique

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25850568     DOI: 10.1002/nau.22766

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


  3 in total

Review 1.  What Is New in Neuromodulation?

Authors:  Courtenay K Moore; Jessica J Rueb; Samir Derisavifard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  The effect of the number of active electrode poles during tined lead placement on long-term efficacy of sacral neuromodulation in patients with faecal incontinence.

Authors:  R Assmann; S O Breukink; S A P Caubergh; L P S Stassen; S M J van Kuijk; J Melenhorst
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 3.917

Review 3.  Reprogramming Sacral Neuromodulation for Sub-Optimal Outcomes: Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Thomas C Dudding; Paul A Lehur; Michael Sørensen; Stefan Engelberg; Maria Paola Bertapelle; Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; Karel Everaert; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Charles H Knowles; Lilli Lundby; Klaus E Matzel; Arantxa Muñoz-Duyos; Mona B Rydningen; Stefan de Wachter
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2021-07-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.