P Moya1, P Parra2, A Arroyo3, E Peña2, J Benavides2, R Calpena3. 1. Coloproctology Unit, Department of Surgery, University General Hospital of Elche, Alicante, Spain. pedromoyaforcen@gmail.com. 2. Coloproctology Unit, Department of Surgery, University General Hospital Reina Sofia, Murcia, Spain. 3. Coloproctology Unit, Department of Surgery, University General Hospital of Elche, Alicante, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation have been described previously as effective treatments for fecal incontinence. Nevertheless, there does not exist any study that compares the efficiency of both. The aim of this study was to compare the use of SNS and PPTNS in males with FI. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study on men with FI treated with SNS or PTNS in the Coloproctology Unit of the University General Hospital of Elche and Reina Sofia of Murcia between January 2010 and December 2011. Preoperative assessment included physical examination, anorectal manometry, and anal endosonography. Anal continence was evaluated using the Wexner continence grading system. Quality of life was evaluated using the Fecal Incontinence Quality of life Scale. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included (ten patients SNS and nine PPTNS). SNS improved FI in nine of the ten patients. The mean Wexner score decreased significantly from a median of 14 (12-16) (preoperative) to 4 (1-8) (6-month revision) (p = 0.007). PTNS improved FI in seven of the nine patients. The mean Wexner score decreased significantly from a median of 12 (11-19) (preoperative) to 5 (4-7) (6-month revision) (p = 0.018). Both treatments produced symptomatic improvement without statistical differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: Our study was nonrandomized with a relatively small number of patients. PPTNS had similar efficiency to the SNS in our men population. However, more studies are necessary to exclude selection bias and analyze long-term results.
BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation have been described previously as effective treatments for fecal incontinence. Nevertheless, there does not exist any study that compares the efficiency of both. The aim of this study was to compare the use of SNS and PPTNS in males with FI. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study on men with FI treated with SNS or PTNS in the Coloproctology Unit of the University General Hospital of Elche and Reina Sofia of Murcia between January 2010 and December 2011. Preoperative assessment included physical examination, anorectal manometry, and anal endosonography. Anal continence was evaluated using the Wexner continence grading system. Quality of life was evaluated using the Fecal Incontinence Quality of life Scale. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included (ten patients SNS and nine PPTNS). SNS improved FI in nine of the ten patients. The mean Wexner score decreased significantly from a median of 14 (12-16) (preoperative) to 4 (1-8) (6-month revision) (p = 0.007). PTNS improved FI in seven of the nine patients. The mean Wexner score decreased significantly from a median of 12 (11-19) (preoperative) to 5 (4-7) (6-month revision) (p = 0.018). Both treatments produced symptomatic improvement without statistical differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: Our study was nonrandomized with a relatively small number of patients. PPTNS had similar efficiency to the SNS in our men population. However, more studies are necessary to exclude selection bias and analyze long-term results.
Authors: P Moya; A Arroyo; J Lacueva; F Candela; L Soriano-Irigaray; A López; M A Gómez; I Galindo; R Calpena Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Antonio Arroyo; Pedro Parra; Alberto Lopez; Emilio Peña; Jaime Ruiz-Tovar; Jorge Benavides; Pedro Moya; José Muñoz; María-José Alcaide; Concepción Escamilla; Rafael Calpena Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 6.071