Literature DB >> 29154850

Motor Response Matters: Optimizing Lead Placement Improves Sacral Neuromodulation Outcomes.

Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky1, Bradley C Gill2, Marisa Clifton3, Henry T Okafor3, Anna E Faris4, Sandip P Vasavada5, Howard B Goldman5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the usefulness of motor responses during sacral neuromodulation lead placement by testing the hypothesis that a greater number of motor responses during intraoperative electrode testing would be associated with more durable therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all sacral neuromodulation lead placements at a large academic center from 2010 to 2015. Included in study were all unilateral sacral lead placements for which the presence or absence of a motor response was documented discretely for each electrode. Motor responses were quantified into separate subscores, including bellows and toe response subscores (each range 0 to 4) for a possible maximum total score of 8 when combined. Revision surgery was the primary outcome. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for factors associated with lead revision.
RESULTS: A total of 176 lead placements qualified for analysis. Mean ± SD cohort age was 58.4 ± 15.9 years, 86.4% of the patients were female and 93.2% had undergone implantation for overactive bladder. Median followup was 10.5 months (range 2 to 36). Overall 34 patients (19%) required lead revision. Revision was negatively associated with the total electrode response score (p = 0.027) and the toe subscore (p = 0.033) but not with the bellows subscore (p = 0.183). Predictors of revision on logistic regression included age less than 59 years at implantation (OR 5.5, 95% CI 2-14) and a total electrode response score less than 4 (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.4-12.8).
CONCLUSIONS: Fewer total electrode responses and specifically fewer toe responses were associated with sacral neuromodulation lead revision. These data suggest that placing a lead with more toe responses during testing may result in more durable sacral neuromodulation therapy.
Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  implantable neurostimulators; motor activity; overactive; reoperation; toes; urinary bladder

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29154850     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.066

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  5 in total

1.  Sacral neuromodulation: troubleshooting needle placement.

Authors:  Whitney K Hendrickson; Cindy L Amundsen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  What Is New in Neuromodulation?

Authors:  Courtenay K Moore; Jessica J Rueb; Samir Derisavifard
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Predictive Factors in Sacral Neuromodulation: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ranjana Jairam; Jamie Drossaerts; Tom Marcelissen; Gommert van Koeveringe; Desiree Vrijens; Philip van Kerrebroeck
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 1.934

4.  Sacral neuromodulation - when and for who.

Authors:  Marcelo Mass-Lindenbaum; D Calderón-Pollak; H B Goldman; Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2021 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 5.  Reprogramming Sacral Neuromodulation for Sub-Optimal Outcomes: Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice.

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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.