4.7 Article

Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation vs Sham Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence in Women: NeurOmodulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage Randomized Clinical Trial

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 117, Issue 4, Pages 654-667

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001605

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  2. NIH Office of Research on Women's Health [2 UG1 HD069006, 2 UG1 HD041261, 2 UG1 HD069013, 2 UG1 HD069010, UG1 HD054214, 2 UG1 HD041267, U24 HD069031]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effect of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) on refractory fecal incontinence (FI) in women. The results showed no significant difference in FI severity improvement and reduction in weekly FI episodes between the PTNS group and the sham stimulation group after 12 weeks of treatment. Additionally, PTNS did not result in improvement in quality of life measures. Therefore, this study does not support the use of PTNS as a treatment for FI in women.
INTRODUCTION: To determine whether percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is superior to sham stimulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI) in women refractory to first-line treatments. METHODS: Women aged 18 years or older with >= 3 months of moderate-to-severe FI that persisted after a 4-week run-in phase were randomized 2:1 (PTNS:sham stimulation) to 12 weekly 30-minute sessions in this multicenter, single-masked, controlled superiority trial. The primary outcome was change from baseline FI severity measured by St. Mark score after 12 weeks of treatment (range 0-24; minimal important difference, 3-5 points). The secondary outcomes included electronic bowel diary events and quality of life. The groups were compared using an adjusted general linear mixed model. RESULTS: Of 199 women who entered the run-in period, 166 (of 170 eligible) were randomized, (111 in PTNS group and 55 in sham group); the mean (SD) age was 63.6 (11.6) years; baseline St. Mark score was 17.4 (2.7); and recording was 6.6 (5.5) FI episodes per week. There was no difference in improvement from baseline in St. Mark scores in the PTNS group when compared with the sham group (-5.3 vs-3.9 points, adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.3 [-2.8 to 0.2]). The groups did not differ in reduction in weekly FI episodes (-2.1 vs -1.9 episodes, adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -0.26 [-1.85 to 1.33]). Condition-specific quality of life measures did not indicate a benefit of PTNS over sham stimulation. Serious adverse events occurred in 4% of each group. DISCUSSION: Although symptom reduction after 12 weeks of PTNS met a threshold of clinical importance, it did not differ from sham stimulation. These data do not support the use of PTNS as conducted for the treatment of FI in women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available