Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2021 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 1

Evaluation of progression from first to second stage sacral neuromodulation and unplanned device removal

Pages
58–65
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Single full-stage procedures may be considered in select patients to reduce morbidity, time, and costs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is an advanced treatment option for patients with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, urinary retention, and bowel disorders; it is usually performed in 2 separate procedures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study aims to determine a cohort’s progression rate from stage 1 to 2 and predict factors for progression and unplanned device removal or revision.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Single full-stage procedures may be considered in select patients to reduce morbidity, time, and costs.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is an advanced treatment option for patients with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, urinary retention, and bowel disorders; it is usually performed in 2 separate procedures. This study aims to determine a cohort’s progression rate from stage 1 to 2 and predict factors for progression and unplanned device removal or revision. Material and methods: A retrospective review was conducted in patients who underwent SNM at a single institution between June 2012 and May 2019. Progression rates from stage 1 to 2, patient characteristics, and indications for unplanned SNM removal or revision were recorded. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher’s exact tests were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 128 patients underwent SNM for 1 or more of the following diagnoses: OAB (n=103), urinary retention (n=15), neurogenic bladder dysfunction (n=4), fecal incontinence (n=2), and constipation (n=4). The progression rate to stage 2 was 92.2% (118/128). Patients who failed to progress to stage 2 had additional diagnoses other than OAB, such as urinary retention or bowel disorders (p=0.007). Fifteen patients (12.7%) required SNM removal or revision within 4 years of surgery. Among these patients, the body mass index was significantly lower (p=0.036). Conclusion: Most patients (92.2%) progressed to stage 2. Patients with only OAB symptoms had a higher progression rate to stage 2. Single full-stage procedures may be considered in select patients to reduce morbidity, time, and costs.

🔖

Cite This Article

FELDKAMP, A., AMASYALI, A. S., GROEGLER, J., JELLISON, F., STAACK, A. (2021). Evaluation of progression from first to second stage sacral neuromodulation and unplanned device removal. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 1, 58–65. https://ajindex.com/articles/413268

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Goldman HB, Lloyd JC, Noblett KL, Carey MP, Castaño Botero JC, Gajewski JB, et al. International Continence Society best practice statement for use of sacral neuromodulation. Neurourol Urodyn 2018
  2. [Crossref] 2. Bernstein AJ, Peters KM. Expanding indications for neuromodulation. Urol Clin North Am 2005
  3. [Crossref] 3. Nikolavsky D, Killinger K, Boura J, Peters K. Comparison of patients undergoing a twostage sacral nerve stimulation procedure: Is there a cost benefit for a single-stage procedure? Int Urol Nephrol 2011
  4. [Crossref] 4. Kantartzis KL, Shepherd JP. Cost-Effectiveness of Test Phase Implantation Strategies for InterStim® Sacral Neuromodulation. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2013
  5. [Crossref] 5. Lai HH, Grewal S. Bacterial colonization rate of interstim and infection outcome with staged testing. Urology 2013
  6. [Crossref] 6. Amundsen CL, Romero AA, Jamison MG, Webster GD. Sacral neuromodulation for intractable urge incontinence: Are there factors associated with cure? Urology 2005
  7. [Crossref] 7. Anger JT, Cameron AP, Madison R, Saigal C, Clemens JQ, Urologic Diseases in America Project. Predictors of Implantable Pulse Generator Placement After Sacral Neuromodulation: Who Does Better? Neuromodulation 2014
  8. [Crossref] 8. Anger JT, Cameron AP, Madison R, Saigal C, Clemens JQ, Urologic Diseases in America Project. Outcomes of Sacral Neuromodulation in a Privately Insured Population. Neuromodulation 2016
  9. [Crossref] 9. Koldewijn EL, Rosier PF, Meuleman EJ, Koster AM, Debruyne FM, van Kerrebroeck PE. Predictors of Success with Neuromodulation in Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Results of Trial Stimulation in 100 Patients. J Urol 1994
  10. [Crossref] 10. Liberman D, Ehlert MJ, Siegel SW. Sacral Neuromodulation in Urological Practice. Urology 2017
  11. [Crossref] 11. Zheng J, Li S, Nie Y, Sun H, Wang M, Dai Y, et al. Sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of intractable constipation. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 2014
  12. Janssen PTJ, Komen N, Melenhorst J, Bouvy ND, Jahanshahi A, Temel Y, et al. Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence: A Review of the Central Mechanisms of Action. J Clin Gastroenterol 2017
  13. [Crossref] 13. Mehmood S, Altaweel WM. Long-term outcome of sacral neuromodulation in patients with idiopathic nonobstructive urinary retention: Single-center experience. Urol Ann 2017
  14. [Crossref] 14. Marinkovic SP, Ford