Literature DB >> 27158546

Adverse events of sacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence reported to the federal drug administration.

Klaus Bielefeldt1.   

Abstract

AIM: To investigate the nature and severity of AE related to sacral neurostimulation (SNS).
METHODS: Based on Pubmed and Embase searches, we identified published trials and case series of SNS for fecal incontinence (FI) and extracted data on adverse events, requiring an active intervention. Those problems were operationally defined as infection, device removal explant or need for lead and/or generator replacement. In addition, we analyzed the Manufacturer and User Device Experience registry of the Federal Drug Administration for the months of August - October of 2015. Events were included if the report specifically mentioned gastrointestinal (GI), bowel and FI as indication and if the narrative did not focus on bladder symptoms. The classification, reporter, the date of the recorded complaint, time between initial implant and report, the type of AE, steps taken and outcome were extracted from the report. In cases of device removal or replacement, we looked for confirmatory comments by healthcare providers or the manufacturer.
RESULTS: Published studies reported adverse events and reoperation rates for 1954 patients, followed for 27 (1-117) mo. Reoperation rates were 18.6% (14.2-23.9) with device explants accounting for 10.0% (7.8-12.7) of secondary surgeries; rates of device replacement or explant or pocket site and electrode revisions increased with longer follow up. During the period examined, the FDA received 1684 reports of AE related to SNS with FI or GI listed as indication. A total of 652 reports met the inclusion criteria, with 52.7% specifically listing FI. Lack or loss of benefit (48.9%), pain or dysesthesia (27.8%) and complication at the generator implantation site (8.7%) were most commonly listed. Complaints led to secondary surgeries in 29.7% of the AE. Reoperations were performed to explant (38.2%) or replace (46.5%) the device or a lead, or revise the generator pocket (14.6%). Conservative management changes mostly involved changes in stimulation parameters (44.5%), which successfully addressed concerns in 35.2% of cases that included information about treatment results.
CONCLUSION: With reoperation rates around 20%, physicians need to fully disclose the high likelihood of complications and secondary interventions and exhaust non-invasive treatments, including transcutaneous stimulation paradigms.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Defecation disorders; Device registry; Implanted medical devices; Sacral nerve stimulation; Treatment complications

Year:  2016        PMID: 27158546      PMCID: PMC4848253          DOI: 10.4292/wjgpt.v7.i2.294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 2150-5349


  87 in total

Review 1.  Surgical treatment options for fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Robert D Madoff
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Prevalence and burden of fecal incontinence: a population-based study in women.

Authors:  Adil E Bharucha; Alan R Zinsmeister; G Richard Locke; Barbara M Seide; Kimberly McKeon; Cathy D Schleck; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Neuromodulation of sacral nerves for incontinence and voiding dysfunctions. Clinical results and complications.

Authors:  H E Dijkema; E H Weil; P T Mijs; R A Janknegt
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Sacral neuromodulation outcomes in patients with urge urinary incontinence and concomitant urge fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Dennis H Kim; Nuzhat Faruqui; Gamal M Ghoniem
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.091

5.  Use of a gentamicin-impregnated collagen sheet (Collatamp(®) ) following implantation of a sacral nerve stimulator for faecal incontinence.

Authors:  J A D Simpson; J Peacock; C Maxwell-Armstrong
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 3.788

6.  Complications of vagal nerve stimulation for drug-resistant epilepsy: a single center longitudinal study of 143 patients.

Authors:  Hannes Kahlow; Magnus Olivecrona
Journal:  Seizure       Date:  2013-07-15       Impact factor: 3.184

7.  Baseline factors predictive of patient satisfaction with sacral neuromodulation for idiopathic fecal incontinence.

Authors:  Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen; Bart van Wunnik; Steen Buntzen; Lilli Lundby; Søren Laurberg; Cor Baeten
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-04-18       Impact factor: 2.571

8.  A pilot study of transcutaneous sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence.

Authors:  G P Thomas; C Norton; R J Nicholls; C J Vaizey
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.788

9.  Short-term Outcomes of a Randomized Pilot Trial of 2 Treatment Regimens of Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence.

Authors:  Craig J Rimmer; Charles H Knowles; Michael Lamparelli; Paul Durdey; Ian Lindsey; Louise Hunt; Karen Nugent; Kathryn A Gill
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Spinal cord stimulator adjustment to maximize implanted battery longevity: a randomized, controlled trial using a computerized, patient-interactive programmer.

Authors:  Richard B North; David D Brigham; Alexander Khalessi; Sherri-Kae Calkins; Steven Piantadosi; David S Campbell; Michael John Daly; P Bobby Dey; Giancarlo Barolat; Rod Taylor
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2004-01
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Disorders of gastrointestinal hypomotility.

Authors:  Klaus Bielefeldt; Ashok Tuteja; Salman Nusrat
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-08-01

2.  Success and Complication Rates After Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence and Constipation: A Single-center Follow-up Study.

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

3.  Efficacy of Sphinkeeper™ implant in treating faecal incontinence.

Authors:  F Litta; A Parello; V De Simone; P Campennì; R Orefice; A A Marra; M Goglia; R Moroni; C Ratto
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 6.939

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.