S A Pilkington1, C Emmett2, C H Knowles3, J Mason4, Y Yiannakou2. 1. University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK. 2. County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Durham, UK. 3. National Bowel Research Centre, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University London, London, UK. 4. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation in adults with chronic constipation. METHOD: Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level. RESULTS: Seven articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 375 patients. Length of procedures and length of stay was not reported. Data on harms were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, making estimates of harm tentative and imprecise. Morbidity rates ranged between 13 and 34%, with overall device removal rate between 8 and 23%. Although inconsistently reported, pooled treatment success was typically 57-87% for patients receiving permanent implants, although there was significant variation between studies. Patient selection was inconsistently documented. No conclusions could be drawn regarding particular phenotypes that responded favourably or unfavourably to sacral nerve stimulation. CONCLUSION: Evidence supporting sacral nerve stimulation is derived from poor quality studies. Three methodologically robust trials are have reported since this review and all have all urged greater caution.
AIM: To assess the outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation in adults with chronic constipation. METHOD: Standardised methods and reporting of benefits and harms were used for all CapaCiTY reviews that closely adhered to PRISMA 2016 guidance. Main conclusions were presented as summary evidence statements with a summative Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (2009) level. RESULTS: Seven articles were identified, providing data on outcomes in 375 patients. Length of procedures and length of stay was not reported. Data on harms were inconsistently reported and heterogeneous, making estimates of harm tentative and imprecise. Morbidity rates ranged between 13 and 34%, with overall device removal rate between 8 and 23%. Although inconsistently reported, pooled treatment success was typically 57-87% for patients receiving permanent implants, although there was significant variation between studies. Patient selection was inconsistently documented. No conclusions could be drawn regarding particular phenotypes that responded favourably or unfavourably to sacral nerve stimulation. CONCLUSION: Evidence supporting sacral nerve stimulation is derived from poor quality studies. Three methodologically robust trials are have reported since this review and all have all urged greater caution.
Authors: Harbinder K Sandhu; Charles Abraham; Sharisse Alleyne; Shyam Balasubramanian; Lauren Betteley; Katie Booth; Dawn Carnes; Andrea D Furlan; Kirstie Haywood; Cynthia Paola Iglesias Urrutia; Ranjit Lall; Andrea Manca; Dipesh Mistry; Vivien P Nichols; Jennifer Noyes; Anisur Rahman; Kate Seers; Jane Shaw; Nicole K Y Tang; Stephanie Taylor; Colin Tysall; Martin Underwood; Emma J Withers; Sam Eldabe Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 2.692