Donald Vaganée1, Thomas M Kessler2, Sigrid Van de Borne1, Gunter De Win1, Stefan De Wachter1. 1. Department of Urology, Antwerp University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium. 2. Neuro-Urology, Spinal Cord Injury and 6 Research, University of Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical follow-up data over 24 months, comparing the use of a curved vs straight stylet in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single tertiary-centre, prospective study between August 2013 and June 2015 involving 40 patients with overactive bladder and 15 with non-obstructive urinary retention refractory to first-line treatment. The primary outcome was successful tined lead procedure according to intention-to-treat analyses at 12 and 24 months. The secondary outcome was number of optimal electrode configurations during programming. Statistical analysis was performed using plain non-parametric tests for numerical and categorical data. RESULTS: Successful tined lead procedures were achieved in 33 of 35 patients (94%) implanted with the curved stylet compared with 13 of 20 patients (65%) implanted with the straight stylet (P = 0.005). Intention-to-treat analyses at 12 and 24 months showed success rates of 94% and 91%, respectively, in the curved stylet group vs 65% and 45%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001). In the curved stylet group, 60% and 25% of the electrode configurations were considered optimal and poor, respectively, vs 40% and 37%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the standardized implantation technique with the curved stylet led to more successful tined lead procedures, better success rates after 2 years of follow-up and a greater number of optimal electrode configurations when compared to use of the straight stylet.
OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical follow-up data over 24 months, comparing the use of a curved vs straight stylet in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single tertiary-centre, prospective study between August 2013 and June 2015 involving 40 patients with overactive bladder and 15 with non-obstructive urinary retention refractory to first-line treatment. The primary outcome was successful tined lead procedure according to intention-to-treat analyses at 12 and 24 months. The secondary outcome was number of optimal electrode configurations during programming. Statistical analysis was performed using plain non-parametric tests for numerical and categorical data. RESULTS: Successful tined lead procedures were achieved in 33 of 35 patients (94%) implanted with the curved stylet compared with 13 of 20 patients (65%) implanted with the straight stylet (P = 0.005). Intention-to-treat analyses at 12 and 24 months showed success rates of 94% and 91%, respectively, in the curved stylet group vs 65% and 45%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001). In the curved stylet group, 60% and 25% of the electrode configurations were considered optimal and poor, respectively, vs 40% and 37%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the standardized implantation technique with the curved stylet led to more successful tined lead procedures, better success rates after 2 years of follow-up and a greater number of optimal electrode configurations when compared to use of the straight stylet.
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
Authors: Andrea Pezzella; Rebecca McCrery; Felicia Lane; Kevin Benson; Chris Taylor; Osvaldo Padron; Bertil Blok; Stefan de Wachter; Jennifer Gruenenfelder; Mahreen Pakzad; Marie-Aimee Perrouin-Verbe; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Jeffrey Mangel; Kenneth Peters; Michael Kennelly; Andrew Shapiro; Una Lee; Craig Comiter; Margaret Mueller; Howard B Goldman Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Christopher M Hornung; Ranveer Vasdev; Kate A Hanson; Rachael Gotlieb; Cynthia S Fok; John Fischer; Nissrine A Nakib; Dwight E Nelson Journal: Int Neurourol J Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 3.038
Authors: Kevin Benson; Rebecca McCrery; Chris Taylor; Osvaldo Padron; Bertil Blok; Stefan de Wachter; Andrea Pezzella; Jennifer Gruenenfelder; Mahreen Pakzad; Marie-Aimee Perrouin-Verbe; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Jeffrey Mangel; Kenneth Peters; Michael Kennelly; Andrew Shapiro; Una Lee; Craig Comiter; Margaret Mueller; Howard Goldman; Felicia Lane Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Paul A Lehur; Michael Sørensen; Thomas C Dudding; Charles H Knowles; Stefan de Wachter; Stefan Engelberg; Klaus E Matzel Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2020-03-09
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