Vicki Patton1, Peter Stewart, David Z Lubowski, Ian J Cook, Phil G Dinning. 1. 1 St. George Hospital Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 2 Department of Colorectal Surgery, St. George Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 3 Department of Surgery, Concord Repatriate Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 4 Department of Gastroenterology, St. George Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 5 Department of Gastroenterology and Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Sacral nerve stimulation is proposed as a treatment for slow-transit constipation. However, in our randomized controlled trial we found no therapeutic benefit over sham stimulation. These patients have now been followed-up over a long-term period. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in patients with scintigraphically confirmed slow-transit constipation. DESIGN: This study was designed for long-term follow-up of patients after completion of a randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: It was conducted at an academic tertiary public hospital in Sydney. PATIENTS: Adults with slow-transit constipation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At the 1- and 2-year postrandomized controlled trial, the primary treatment outcome measure was the proportion of patients who reported a feeling of complete evacuation on >2 days per week for ≥2 of 3 weeks during stool diary assessment. Secondary outcome was demonstration of improved colonic transit at 1 year. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients entered long-term follow-up, and 1 patient died. Patient dissatisfaction or serious adverse events resulted in 44 patients withdrawing from the study because of treatment failure by the end of the second year. At 1 and 2 years, 10 (OR = 18.8% (95% CI, 8.3% to 29.3%)) and 3 patients (OR = 5.7% (95% CI, -0.5% to 11.9%)) met the primary outcome measure. Colonic isotope retention at 72 hours did not differ between baseline (OR = 75.6% (95% CI, 65.7%-85.6%)) and 1-year follow-up (OR = 61.7% (95% CI, 47.8%-75.6%)). LIMITATIONS: This study only assessed patients with slow-transit constipation. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with slow-transit constipation, sacral nerve stimulation was not an effective treatment.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation is proposed as a treatment for slow-transit constipation. However, in our randomized controlled trial we found no therapeutic benefit over sham stimulation. These patients have now been followed-up over a long-term period. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in patients with scintigraphically confirmed slow-transit constipation. DESIGN: This study was designed for long-term follow-up of patients after completion of a randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: It was conducted at an academic tertiary public hospital in Sydney. PATIENTS: Adults with slow-transit constipation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At the 1- and 2-year postrandomized controlled trial, the primary treatment outcome measure was the proportion of patients who reported a feeling of complete evacuation on >2 days per week for ≥2 of 3 weeks during stool diary assessment. Secondary outcome was demonstration of improved colonic transit at 1 year. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients entered long-term follow-up, and 1 patient died. Patient dissatisfaction or serious adverse events resulted in 44 patients withdrawing from the study because of treatment failure by the end of the second year. At 1 and 2 years, 10 (OR = 18.8% (95% CI, 8.3% to 29.3%)) and 3 patients (OR = 5.7% (95% CI, -0.5% to 11.9%)) met the primary outcome measure. Colonic isotope retention at 72 hours did not differ between baseline (OR = 75.6% (95% CI, 65.7%-85.6%)) and 1-year follow-up (OR = 61.7% (95% CI, 47.8%-75.6%)). LIMITATIONS: This study only assessed patients with slow-transit constipation. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with slow-transit constipation, sacral nerve stimulation was not an effective treatment.
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: V Patton; V Balakrishnan; C Pieri; P Doherty; K C Phan-Thien; D W King; D Z Lubowski Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 3.781
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
Authors: S C M Heemskerk; A H Rotteveel; M A Benninga; C I M Baeten; A A M Masclee; J Melenhorst; S M J van Kuijk; C D Dirksen; S O Breukink Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Stella C M Heemskerk; Adriënne H Rotteveel; Jarno Melenhorst; Stéphanie O Breukink; Merel L Kimman; Carmen D Dirksen Journal: J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 4.029