Marco Agnello1, Mario Vottero2, Paola Bertapelle2. 1. Università degli Studi di Torino-Scuola di Medicina-Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Urologia U, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Presidio Molinette (Corso Bramante 88), 10126, Torino, Italy. agnello.marco@hotmail.it. 2. SC Neuro-Urologia, A.O.U. Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The main objective of the study is to assess the efficacy and safety of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) during pregnancy. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent SNM implantation in our center and subsequently became pregnant. The indication for SNM, timing of device de-activation (if performed), course of pregnancy and urological complications, duration of labor, childbirth term, delivery mode, congenital abnormalities and SNM dysfunctions after delivery were recorded. RESULTS: Fourteen pregnancies were recorded among 11 women undergoing SNM. Indications for device implantation were urinary retention (7 cases) and dysfunctional voiding (4 cases). Two patients carried on two and three pregnancies, respectively, with the device turned off since the first trimester. They both had to return to self-catheterization and developed recurring urinary tract infections. No major urological complications were recorded among the remaining nine women that kept the device on during pregnancy. A cesarean section was performed in four cases for obstetric reasons, and in seven cases it was planned by the urologist and gynecologist to avoid lead damage/displacement. Three pregnancies resulted in a vaginal delivery, and no association with term of delivery or duration of labor was observed. No congenital abnormalities related to SNM or lead displacement are reported, and only one patient required device removal because of significant loss of efficacy after childbirth. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SNM during pregnancy appears to be safe, without morbidity for the fetus. Moreover, risks associated with switching the device off may be greater than benefits and justify maintaining the electrical stimulation throughout pregnancy.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The main objective of the study is to assess the efficacy and safety of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) during pregnancy. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent SNM implantation in our center and subsequently became pregnant. The indication for SNM, timing of device de-activation (if performed), course of pregnancy and urological complications, duration of labor, childbirth term, delivery mode, congenital abnormalities and SNM dysfunctions after delivery were recorded. RESULTS: Fourteen pregnancies were recorded among 11 women undergoing SNM. Indications for device implantation were urinary retention (7 cases) and dysfunctional voiding (4 cases). Two patients carried on two and three pregnancies, respectively, with the device turned off since the first trimester. They both had to return to self-catheterization and developed recurring urinary tract infections. No major urological complications were recorded among the remaining nine women that kept the device on during pregnancy. A cesarean section was performed in four cases for obstetric reasons, and in seven cases it was planned by the urologist and gynecologist to avoid lead damage/displacement. Three pregnancies resulted in a vaginal delivery, and no association with term of delivery or duration of labor was observed. No congenital abnormalities related to SNM or lead displacement are reported, and only one patient required device removal because of significant loss of efficacy after childbirth. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SNM during pregnancy appears to be safe, without morbidity for the fetus. Moreover, risks associated with switching the device off may be greater than benefits and justify maintaining the electrical stimulation throughout pregnancy.
Authors: Jeffrey Karsdon; Robert E Garfield; Shao-Qing Shi; William Maner; George Saade Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Amr Mahran; Alex Soriano; Ahmed S Safwat; Adonis Hijaz; Sangeeta T Mahajan; Emanuel C Trabuco; Steven W Siegel; Sherif A El-Nashar Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 2.894