4.0 Article

Reoperation After Sacral Neuromodulation Therapy: A Single-Institution Experience

Journal

FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 175-178

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31828ab3c9

Keywords

sacral neuromodulation; complications; InterStim; reoperation; explantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Sacral neuromodulation has become an accepted treatment for various types of lower urinary tract dysfunction. However, despite technologic advances in device implantation and a trial stimulation period, sacral neuromodulation still has a significant reoperation rate. We report our single-institution experience of reoperation rates. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of our patients who had undergone the implantation of the InterStim device from April 1999 to December 2011 for lower urinary tract dysfunction. Results: A total of 155 InterStim devices were implanted by 2 surgeons. Of the 142 patients with complete follow-up, 55 (38.2%) patients required reoperation, for either revision or explantation of the device. Revisions were performed in 30 (21.1%) patients, most commonly for mechanical failure of device, battery end-of-service, and pain, either at the site of the implanted pulse generator or with stimulation. Of the 30 patients who underwent revision, 14 had successful results, 6 had persistent symptoms, and 10 progressed to eventual explantation. The overall explantation rate was 24.6% (35 of 142 patients), and the average time to removal was 44 months. Most of the explantations were performed for poor symptom control and failure to maintain response (74.3%). Reoperation was not associated with age, sex, obesity, diabetes, chronic pain, use of the tined lead, or type of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Conclusions: Sacral neuromodulation has a substantial revision and explantation rate, without any clear predictors for these complications. Patients should be counseled to these complications before surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available