M Zeiton1, Sara Faily2, James Nicholson1,2, Karen Telford1,2, Abhiram Sharma3,4,5. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Trust, Manchester, UK. 2. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Trust, Manchester, UK. abhisurgery@gmail.com. 4. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. abhisurgery@gmail.com. 5. Department of Surgery, University Hospital of South Manchester and MAHSC, University of Manchester, Acute Block, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, M239LT, UK. abhisurgery@gmail.com.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study is to determine the occurrence of surgical revision in a cohort of patients treated with sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for faecal incontinence and constipation and to establish the types of procedures performed and indications for surgery. METHOD: From the years 2002 to 2014, 125 patients were identified who had undergone permanent SNS therapy with 36 (28.8 %) patients requiring surgical intervention postimplantation. These cases were retrospectively reviewed (range of follow-up 1-99 months). RESULTS: Over a total of 1512 months of SNS treatment, 51 unplanned surgical procedures were required in 36 patients. At present, 48 procedures have been performed at an average of 2.6 years following implantation and three patients are awaiting surgery. Lead-related problems accounted for 30 (58.8 %) procedures at an average of 1.7 years affecting 22 patients. Battery and implantable pulse generator-related problems attributed to 13 procedures (25.5 %) in 12 patients at an average of 5.0 years. Battery depletion occurred in seven patients at an average of 5.4 years. Surgical revision was required to replace, remove, or resite various components of the SNS system. Indications for surgery included lead damage, pain and loss or lack of SNS efficacy. Explantation was warranted in six patients due to poor SNS efficacy, pain, infection and facilitation of a magnetic resonance imaging scan. This was performed at an average of 1.6 years. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of patients treated with SNS therapy require surgical revision. These unplanned procedures are associated with substantial unexpected costs that financially burden SNS services.
AIM: The aim of this study is to determine the occurrence of surgical revision in a cohort of patients treated with sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for faecal incontinence and constipation and to establish the types of procedures performed and indications for surgery. METHOD: From the years 2002 to 2014, 125 patients were identified who had undergone permanent SNS therapy with 36 (28.8 %) patients requiring surgical intervention postimplantation. These cases were retrospectively reviewed (range of follow-up 1-99 months). RESULTS: Over a total of 1512 months of SNS treatment, 51 unplanned surgical procedures were required in 36 patients. At present, 48 procedures have been performed at an average of 2.6 years following implantation and three patients are awaiting surgery. Lead-related problems accounted for 30 (58.8 %) procedures at an average of 1.7 years affecting 22 patients. Battery and implantable pulse generator-related problems attributed to 13 procedures (25.5 %) in 12 patients at an average of 5.0 years. Battery depletion occurred in seven patients at an average of 5.4 years. Surgical revision was required to replace, remove, or resite various components of the SNS system. Indications for surgery included lead damage, pain and loss or lack of SNS efficacy. Explantation was warranted in six patients due to poor SNS efficacy, pain, infection and facilitation of a magnetic resonance imaging scan. This was performed at an average of 1.6 years. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of patients treated with SNS therapy require surgical revision. These unplanned procedures are associated with substantial unexpected costs that financially burden SNS services.
Authors: Steven D Wexner; John A Coller; Ghislain Devroede; Tracy Hull; Richard McCallum; Miranda Chan; Jennifer M Ayscue; Abbas S Shobeiri; David Margolin; Michael England; Howard Kaufman; William J Snape; Ece Mutlu; Heidi Chua; Paul Pettit; Deborah Nagle; Robert D Madoff; Darin R Lerew; Anders Mellgren Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Andrea Frudinger; Rainer Marksteiner; Johann Pfeifer; Eva Margreiter; Johannes Paede; Marco Thurner Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2018-09-13 Impact factor: 6.832
Authors: Bernhard Widmann; Christian Galata; Rene Warschkow; Ulrich Beutner; Önder Ögredici; Franc H Hetzer; Bruno M Schmied; Stefan Post; Lukas Marti Journal: J Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 4.924
Authors: Cathérine T Kollmann; Elise B Pretzsch; Andreas Kunz; Christoph Isbert; Katica Krajinovic; Joachim Reibetanz; Mia Kim Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 2.571
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