Phil G Dinning1, Linda Hunt2, Vicki Patton3, Teng Zhang4, Michal Szczesniak2, Val Gebski5, Mike Jones6, Peter Stewart7, David Z Lubowski3, Ian J Cook8. 1. 1] Faculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia [2] Department of Gastroenterology and Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia. 2. Faculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia. 3. 1] Faculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia [2] Department of Anorectal Physiology, St George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Department of Gastroenterology, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Research Methodology, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 6. Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Ryde, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Department of Surgery, The Concord Repatriate Hospital, Concord, New South Wales, Australia. 8. 1] Faculty of Medicine, St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia [2] Department of Gastroenterology, St. George Hospital, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a potential treatment for constipation refractory to standard therapies. However, there have been no randomized controlled studies examining its efficacy. In patients with slow transit constipation, we evaluated the efficacy of suprasensory and subsensory SNS compared with sham, in a prospective, 18-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-phase crossover study. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who, on more than 2 days/week for at least 2 of 3 weeks, reported a bowel movement associated with a feeling of complete evacuation. METHODS: After 3 weeks of temporary peripheral nerve evaluation (PNE), all patients had permanent implantation and were randomized to subsensory/sham (3 weeks each) and then re-randomized to suprasensory/sham (3 weeks each) with a 2-week washout period between each arm. Daily stool dairies were kept, and quality of life (QoL; SF36) was measured at the end of each arm. RESULTS:Between November 2006 and March 2012, 234 constipated patients were assessed, of whom 59 were willing and deemed eligible to participate (4 male; median age 42 years). Of the 59 patients, 16 (28%) responded to PNE. Fifty-five patients went on to permanent SNS implantation. The proportion of patients satisfying the primary outcome measure did not differ between suprasensory (30%) and sham (21%) stimulations, nor between subsensory (25%) and sham (25%) stimulations. There were no significant changes in QoL scores. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory slow transit constipation, SNS did not improve the frequency of complete bowel movements over the 3-week active period.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a potential treatment for constipation refractory to standard therapies. However, there have been no randomized controlled studies examining its efficacy. In patients with slow transit constipation, we evaluated the efficacy of suprasensory and subsensory SNS compared with sham, in a prospective, 18-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-phase crossover study. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who, on more than 2 days/week for at least 2 of 3 weeks, reported a bowel movement associated with a feeling of complete evacuation. METHODS: After 3 weeks of temporary peripheral nerve evaluation (PNE), all patients had permanent implantation and were randomized to subsensory/sham (3 weeks each) and then re-randomized to suprasensory/sham (3 weeks each) with a 2-week washout period between each arm. Daily stool dairies were kept, and quality of life (QoL; SF36) was measured at the end of each arm. RESULTS: Between November 2006 and March 2012, 234 constipatedpatients were assessed, of whom 59 were willing and deemed eligible to participate (4 male; median age 42 years). Of the 59 patients, 16 (28%) responded to PNE. Fifty-five patients went on to permanent SNS implantation. The proportion of patients satisfying the primary outcome measure did not differ between suprasensory (30%) and sham (21%) stimulations, nor between subsensory (25%) and sham (25%) stimulations. There were no significant changes in QoL scores. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory slow transit constipation, SNS did not improve the frequency of complete bowel movements over the 3-week active period.
Authors: Michael A Kamm; Thomas C Dudding; Jarno Melenhorst; Michael Jarrett; Zengri Wang; Steen Buntzen; Claes Johansson; Søren Laurberg; Harald Rosen; Carolynne J Vaizey; Klaus Matzel; Cor Baeten Journal: Gut Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Bart P van Wunnik; Babette Peeters; Bas Govaert; Fred H Nieman; Marc A Benninga; Cor G Baeten Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Charles H Knowles; Noel Thin; Katherine Gill; Chetan Bhan; Karyn Grimmer; Peter J Lunniss; Norman S Williams; S Mark Scott Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Zhihui Huang; Shiying Li; Robert D Foreman; Jieyun Yin; Ning Dai; Jiande D Z Chen Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Mana H Vriesman; Ilan J N Koppen; Michael Camilleri; Carlo Di Lorenzo; Marc A Benninga Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 46.802