4.5 Article

Meta-analysis: sacral nerve stimulation versus conservative therapy in the treatment of faecal incontinence

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 275-294

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-010-1119-y

Keywords

Faecal incontinence; Sacral neuromodulation; Sacral nerve stimulation; Minimally invasive therapy

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2008-21-005] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) has recently been used in the management of faecal incontinence (FI). This study compared SNS to conservative management with regards to functional and quality of life outcomes. Meta-analysis of studies published between 1995 and 2008 on SNS for FI was performed. Outcomes evaluated were functional, physiological and quality of life. A random-effects model was used and sensitivity analyses performed. Subgroup analyses were performed on age and sphincter status. Thirty-four studies were included, reporting on 944 patients undergoing peripheral nerve evaluation; 665 underwent permanent SNS. Weekly incontinence episodes (weighted mean difference [WMD] -6.83; 95% confidence intervals [CI] -8.05, -5.60; p < 0.001) and incontinence scores (WMD -10.57; 95% CI -11.89, -9.24; p < 0.001) were significantly reduced with SNS; ability to defer defecation (WMD 7.99 min; 95% CI 5.93, 10.05; p < 0.001) was increased. Most SF-36 and FIQL domains improved following SNS, and mean anal pressures increased significantly (p < 0.001). Results remained consistent on sensitivity analysis. The under-56 years age group showed smaller functional but greater physiological and quality of life improvements. Results were similar between sphincter intact and impaired subgroups. The complication rate was 15% for permanent SNS, with 3% resulting in permanent explantation. SNS results in significant improvements in objective and subjective measures for faecally incontinent patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available