Sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence – 10 years experience and long-term outcomes of a specialized centre
Authors:
P. Šlauf; R. Vobořil
Authors place of work:
Chirurgická klinika 1. lékařské fakulty Univerzity Karlovy a Fakultní nemocnice Bulovka, Praha
Published in the journal:
Rozhl. Chir., 2021, roč. 100, č. 10, s. 475-483.
Category:
Original articles
doi:
https://doi.org/10.33699/PIS.2021.100.10.475–483
Summary
Introduction: Sacral neuromodulation/sacral nerve stimulation (SNM/SNS) has become the most successful method for treatment of faecal incontinence (FI) in the last 10 years. The high efficiency of SNM is based on the electrical stimulation of the external anal sphincter and moreover the mechanism of action of SNS can be explained by the modulation of somatovisceral reflexes and perceptions of afferent information. Therefore the mechanism of action is more complex in contrast to other methods of treatment. In the Czech Republic, the SNM was implemented for the first time in 2010 with the financial support of the IGA grant of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Since 2018, two specialized centres for the treatment of FI using the SNM method have been established in the Czech Republic.
Methods: In the years 2010−2020, 35 patients were indicated for SNM. The ratio of women to men was 34:1. The mean age at implantation was 62 years (range 46−75). Most patients were in the 6th and 7th decade. Two diagnostic procedures were performed in all patients, percutaneous evaluation of the S2−S4 sacral nerves, implantation of the Medtronic 3889 28cm stimulation tined lead electrode and its connection to an external stimulator and subsequent subchronic stimulation for 2−4 weeks. The criteria for permanent neurostimulator implantation were a minimum 50% reduction in the number of FI episodes per week or a 50% reduction in incontinence score. Patients were then implanted with a Medtronic InterStim II 3058 permanent neurostimulator.
Results: A permanent neurostimulator was implanted in 33 of 35 patients (94%). No patient died. The complication rate was 11.4%. In 2 patients it was an infectious complication. In one patient malposition of the stimulator occurred after falling down and in one patient we observed lead breakage with subsequent malfunction of the stimulator after falling down. All complications were successfully resolved by reoperation. The longterm effect of SNM was evaluated in the group of the first 15 implanted patients from 2010−2011. Of these, 9 patients were available, in whom a new neurostimulator was reimplanted due to loss of battery power in 2018−2020. The mean length of follow-up was 112 months (99−124). The mean number of FI episodes per week was 1.9 (0−13) after neurostimulator implantation compared to 13.6 (3−25) before implantation. The Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score (CCIS) was 8.3 (3−16) after neurostimulator implantation compared to CCIS 18.8 (15−20) before implantation. Both FI episode counts and CCIS scores were significantly lower (p<0.05). According to PP (per protocol) analysis, in 64.3% of patients at least 50% improvement of continence or reduction of FI episodes persists after 8−10 years in comparison with the condition before primary implantation; full continence was achieved in 4 patients (28.6%).
Conclusion: Sacral neuromodulation is an effective and safe minimally invasive method for the treatment of severe faecal incontinence. A beneficial long-term effect is observed in more than half of the patients. Successful outcomes of SNM depend on careful selection of patients, precise electrode placement technique and experience of the specialized centre. Key words: faecal incontinence – sacral neuromodulation – sacral nerve stimulation – long-term outcomes
Keywords:
faecal incontinence – sacral neuromodulation – sacral nerve stimulation – long-term outcomes
Zdroje
1. Ng KS, Sivakumaran Y, Nassar N, et al. Fecal incontinence: community prevalence and associated factors – a systematic review. Dis Colon Rectum 2015;1194−1209. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000514.
2. Ditah I, Devaki P, Luma HN, et al. Prevalence, trends, and risk factors for fecal incontinence in United States adults 2005–2010. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:636–643. doi:10.1016/j. cgh.2013.07.020.
3. Nelson R, Furner S, Norton N, et al. Community‐based prevalence of anal incontinence. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1995;274:559–561. doi:10.1001/ jama.1995.03530070057030.
4. Rao SSC. Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1585–604. doi:10.1111/j.1572- 0241.2004.40105.x.
5. Norton C. Behavioral management of fecal incontinence in adults. Gastroenterol. 2004;126:S64–S70. doi:10.1053/j. gastro.2003.10.058.
6. Jarrett MED, Mowatt G, Glazener CMA, et al. Systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1559–1569. doi:10.1002/bjs.4796.
7. Wexner SD, Bleier J. Current surgical strategies to treat fecal incontinence. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9:1577– 1589. doi:10.1586/17474124.2015.1093 417.
8. Thanago E. Neural stimulation for bladder control. Semin Neurol. 1988;8:170– 173. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1041373.
9. Matzel KE, Stadelmaie U, Gall FP, Hohenfellner M. Electrical stimulation of sacral spinal nerves for treatment of faecal incontinence. Lancet 1995;346:1124–1127. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91799-3.
10. Maeda Y, Lundby L, Buntzen S, et al. Outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence at 5 years. Ann Surg. 2014;259:1126–1131. doi:10.1097/ SLA.0b013e31829d3969.
11. Thomas GP, Bradshaw E, Vaizey CJ. A review of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence following rectal surgery and radiotherapy. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:939–942. doi:10.1111/ codi.13069.
12. Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA, Turner IC, et al. Effects of short term sacral nerve stimulation on anal and rectal function in patients with anal incontinence. Gut 1999;44:407–412. doi:10.1136/ gut.44.3.407.
13. Šlauf P, Antoš F, Dytrych P, et al. Stimulace sakrálního nervu v léčbě fekální inkontinence − první zkušenosti v České republice a hodnocení funkčních výsledků. Rozhl Chir. 2011;90:674−681.
14. Leo CA, Thomas GP, Bradshaw E, et al. Long-term outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis. 2020;22:2191−2198. doi:10.1111/ codi.15369.
15. Matzel KE, Lux P, Heuer S, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: long‐term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:636–641. doi:10.1111/ j.1463-1318.2008.01673.x.
16. Altomare DF, Giuratrabocchetta S, Knowles CH, et al. Long‐term outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2015;102:407−415. doi:org/10.1002/bjs.9740.
17. Wexner SD, Hull T, Edden Y, et al. Infection rates in a large investigational trial of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:1081–1089. doi:10.1007/ s11605-010-1177-z.
18. Janssen PTJ, Komen N, Melenhorst J, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence, A review of the central mechanisms of action. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 2017;51:669−676. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2016.10.038.
19. Gourcerol G, Vitton V, Leroi AM, et al. How sacral nerve stimulation works in patients with faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:e203−e211. doi:10.1111/j.1463- 1318.2011.02623.x.
20. Campanati RG, da Silva RG, Rodrigues FG, et al. Mechanisms of action of sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence. EC Gastroenterology and Digestive System 2019;6.8:719−724.
21. Maeda Y, O´Connel PR, Lehur PA, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation: A European consensus statement. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:074−087. doi:10.1111/ codi.12905.
22. Pieniowski EHA, Nordenvall, C, Palmer G, et al. Prevalence of low anterior resection syndrom and impact on quality of life after rectal cancer surgery. BJS Open 2020;4:935−942. doi:10. 1002/bjs5. 50312.
23. Ramage L, Qiu S, Kontovounisios C, et al. A systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation for low anterior resection syndrome. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:762–771. doi:10.1111/codi.12968.
24. Matzel KE, Bittorf B, Günther K, et al. Rectal resection with low anastomosis: functional outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2003;5:458– 464. doi:10.1046/j.1463-1318.2003.t01- 1-00503.x.
25. Matzel KE, Stadelmaier U, Muehldorfer S, et al. Continence after colorectal reconstruction following resection: impact of level of anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1997;12:82–87. doi:10.1007/ s003840050086.
26. Mizrahi I, Chadi SA, Haim N, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence following proctectomy. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19:0145-0152. doi:10.1111/codi.13570.
27. Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, et al. Longterm durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56:235−245. doi:10.1097/DCR.0b013e318276b24c.
28. Force L, da Silva G. Management of complications of sacral neuromodulation. Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery 2017;28:173−176. doi:10.1053/j. scrs.2017.07.006.
29. Guzman-Negron JM, Pizzaro-Berdichewsky J, Gill BC, et al. Can lumbosacral magnetic resonance be performed safely in patients with a sacral neuromodulation device ? An in vivo prospective study. J Urol. 2018;200:1088−1092. doi:10.1016/j. juro.2018.05.095.
30. Goldman HB, Loyd BC, Noblet KL, et al. International Continence Society best practice statement for use of sacral neuromodulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:1823−1848. doi:10.1002/ nau.23515.
31. de Wachter S, Knowles CHH, Elterman DS, et al. New technologies and applications in sacral neuromodulation: An update. Advances in Therapy 2020;37:637−643. doi:10.1007/s12325-019-01205-z.
32. Matzel KE, Chartier-Kastler E, Knowles CHH, et al. Sacral neuromodulation: standardized elecrode placement technique. Neuromodulation 2017;20:816−24. doi:10.1111/ner.12695.
33. Jorge JM, Wexner SD. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:77–97. doi: 10.1007/ BF02050307.
34. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, et al. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44:77– 80. doi:10.1136/gut.44.1.77.
35. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, et al. Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity of symptoms associated with fecal incontinence: the fecal incontinence severity index. Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:1525−1532. doi:10.1007/BF02236199.
36. Seong MK, Jung SI, Kim TW, et al. Comparative analyses of summary scoring systems in measuring fecal incontinence. J Korean Surg Soc. 2011;81:326−331. doi:10.4174/jkss.2011.81.5.326.
Štítky
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Perspectives in Surgery
2021 Číslo 10
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole in perioperative treatment in children under 14 years – results of a questionnaire survey from practice
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence – 10 years experience and long-term outcomes of a specialized centre
- Bronchogenic cyst of gastric cardia – case report and literature review
- Delirious conditions in surgical ICU – case report
- Peritoneal surface malignancy spread − reoperations after cytoreductive surgery + HIPEC