Jaan Kirss1,2, Tarja Pinta3, Tero Rautio4, Pirita Varpe5, Matti Kairaluoma6, Marja Hyöty7, Saija Hurme8, Camilla Böckelman9, Valtteri Kairaluoma6, Sinikka Salmenkylä9, Mikael Victorzon8,10. 1. Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. jaan.kirss@tyks.fi. 2. University of Turku, Turku, Finland. jaan.kirss@tyks.fi. 3. Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Seinäjoki, Finland. 4. Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. 5. Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 6. Jyväskylä Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland. 7. Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland. 8. University of Turku, Turku, Finland. 9. Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 10. Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this multicentre study was to analyse the effects of patent sphincter lesions and previous sphincter repair on the results of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) treatment on patients with faecal incontinence (FI). METHODS: Patients examined by endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) with FI as the indication for SNM treatment were included in the study. Data was collected from all the centres providing SNM treatment in Finland and analysed for differences in treatment outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients treated for incontinence with SNM had been examined by EAUS. Of these patients, 33 had a history of previous delayed sphincter repair. A patent sphincter lesion was detected by EAUS in 128 patients. The EAUS finding did not influence the SNM test phase outcome (p = 0.129) or the final treatment outcome (p = 0.233). Patient's history of prior sphincter repair did not have a significant effect on the SNM test (p = 0.425) or final treatment outcome (p = 0.442). CONCLUSIONS: Results of our study indicate that a sphincter lesion or previous sphincter repair has no significant effect on the outcome of SNM treatment. Our data suggests that delayed sphincter repair prior to SNM treatment initiation for FI is not necessary.
PURPOSE: The aim of this multicentre study was to analyse the effects of patent sphincter lesions and previous sphincter repair on the results of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) treatment on patients with faecal incontinence (FI). METHODS:Patients examined by endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) with FI as the indication for SNM treatment were included in the study. Data was collected from all the centres providing SNM treatment in Finland and analysed for differences in treatment outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients treated for incontinence with SNM had been examined by EAUS. Of these patients, 33 had a history of previous delayed sphincter repair. A patent sphincter lesion was detected by EAUS in 128 patients. The EAUS finding did not influence the SNM test phase outcome (p = 0.129) or the final treatment outcome (p = 0.233). Patient's history of prior sphincter repair did not have a significant effect on the SNM test (p = 0.425) or final treatment outcome (p = 0.442). CONCLUSIONS: Results of our study indicate that a sphincter lesion or previous sphincter repair has no significant effect on the outcome of SNM treatment. Our data suggests that delayed sphincter repair prior to SNM treatment initiation for FI is not necessary.