4.5 Article

Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence: Long-term Outcomes

Journal

DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
Volume 54, Issue 8, Pages 969-974

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31821e57c2

Keywords

Sacral nerve stimulation; Neuromodulation; Fecal incontinence

Funding

  1. Medtronic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies advocate the short-term benefits of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence, but there has been a paucity of studies on longer-term outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to report the long-term outcome of sacral nerve stimulation performed for fecal incontinence at a single institution. PATIENTS AND DESIGN: Between January 2004 and May 2007, 53 patients underwent definitive sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence at our institution. Prospectively recorded baseline information, including Wexner incontinence scores and standard short-form (SF-12) health survey scores, were compared with scores at follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were available for long-term follow-up with a mean duration of 51 months. The median Wexner score decreased from a baseline of 11.5 (range, 3.0-18.0) to 8.0 (range, 0.0-18.0) at follow-up. The mean difference in Wexner score was 2.7 (P < .001). There was no statistically significant change in SF-12 physical scores, but a small but highly significant change occurred in SF-12 mental scores. The median SF-12 mental domain score was 49.5 (range, 15.0-62.1) at baseline, and 57.0 (range, 20.0-64.0) at follow-up, with a mean difference of 4.5 (P = .006). Subgroup analysis performed comparing patients with or without prior intersphincteric silicon biomaterial implants demonstrated a mean difference in Wexner score of -3.5 (no implant) vs 0.0 (previous implant), with P < .09 (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Sacral nerve stimulation results in a statistically significant improvement in fecal incontinence scores in the long term.

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