Constantinos Simillis1,2,3, Nikhil Lal1,2, Shengyang Qiu1,2, Christos Kontovounisios1,2, Shahnawaz Rasheed2,3, Emile Tan4, Paris P Tekkis1,2,3. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Road, London, UK. 2. Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK. 3. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Marsden Hospital, Fulham Road, London, UK. 4. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Academia, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. emile.john.tan.k.w@singhealth.com.sg.
Abstract
AIMS: Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) are both second-line treatments for faecal incontinence (FI). To compare the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of SNS versus PTNS for treating FI in adults. METHOD: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify studies comparing SNS and PTNS for treating FI. A risk of bias assessment was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four studies (one randomised controlled trial and three nonrandomised prospective studies) reported on 302 patients: 109 underwent SNS and 193 underwent PTNS. All included studies noted an improvement in symptoms after treatment, without any significant difference in efficacy between SNS and PTNS. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the Wexner score improved significantly with SNS compared to PTNS (weighted mean difference 2.27; 95% confidence interval 3.42, 1.12; P < 0.01). Moreover, SNS was also associated with a significant reduction in FI episodes per week and a greater improvement in the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life coping and depression domains, compared to PTNS on short-term follow-up. Only two studies reported on adverse events, reporting no serious adverse events with neither SNS nor PTNS. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that SNS results in significantly improved functional outcomes and quality of life compared to PTNS. No serious adverse events were identified with either treatment. Further, high-quality, multi-centre randomised controlled trials with standardised outcome measures and long-term follow-up are required in this field.
AIMS: Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) are both second-line treatments for faecal incontinence (FI). To compare the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of SNS versus PTNS for treating FI in adults. METHOD: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify studies comparing SNS and PTNS for treating FI. A risk of bias assessment was performed using The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four studies (one randomised controlled trial and three nonrandomised prospective studies) reported on 302 patients: 109 underwent SNS and 193 underwent PTNS. All included studies noted an improvement in symptoms after treatment, without any significant difference in efficacy between SNS and PTNS. Meta-analysis demonstrated that the Wexner score improved significantly with SNS compared to PTNS (weighted mean difference 2.27; 95% confidence interval 3.42, 1.12; P < 0.01). Moreover, SNS was also associated with a significant reduction in FI episodes per week and a greater improvement in the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life coping and depression domains, compared to PTNS on short-term follow-up. Only two studies reported on adverse events, reporting no serious adverse events with neither SNS nor PTNS. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that SNS results in significantly improved functional outcomes and quality of life compared to PTNS. No serious adverse events were identified with either treatment. Further, high-quality, multi-centre randomised controlled trials with standardised outcome measures and long-term follow-up are required in this field.
Authors: N N Thin; S J C Taylor; S A Bremner; A V Emmanuel; N Hounsome; N S Williams; C H Knowles Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Alexander Hotouras; Jamie Murphy; Marion Allison; Anne Curry; Norman S Williams; Charles H Knowles; Christopher L Chan Journal: Surg Today Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: N N Thin; E J Horrocks; A Hotouras; S Palit; M A Thaha; C L H Chan; K E Matzel; C H Knowles Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Sadé L Assmann; Daniel Keszthelyi; Jos Kleijnen; Foteini Anastasiou; Elissa Bradshaw; Ann E Brannigan; Emma V Carrington; Giuseppe Chiarioni; Liora D A Ebben; Marc A Gladman; Yasuko Maeda; Jarno Melenhorst; Giovanni Milito; Jean W M Muris; Julius Orhalmi; Daniel Pohl; Yvonne Tillotson; Mona Rydningen; Saulius Svagzdys; Carolynne J Vaizey; Stephanie O Breukink Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 6.866
Authors: Christopher J Czura; Marom Bikson; Leigh Charvet; Jiande D Z Chen; Manfred Franke; Marat Fudim; Eric Grigsby; Sam Hamner; Jared M Huston; Navid Khodaparast; Elliot Krames; Bruce J Simon; Peter Staats; Kristl Vonck Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 4.086