4.6 Article

Randomized clinical trial of sacral nerve stimulation for refractory constipation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 104, 期 3, 页码 205-213

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10326

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. French Ministry of Health (PHRC)
  2. Medtronic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Open studies have reported favourable results for sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of refractory constipation. Here, its efficacy was assessed in a double-blind crossover RCT. Methods: Patients with at least two of the following criteria were included: fewer than three bowel movements per week; straining to evacuate on more than 25 per cent of attempts; or sensation of incomplete evacuation on more than 25 per cent of occasions. Response to therapy was defined as at least three bowel movements per week and/or more than 50 per cent improvement in symptoms. Responders to an initial 3-week peripheral nerve evaluation were offered permanent implantation of a pulse generator and were assigned randomly in a crossover design to two 8-week intervals of active or sham stimulation. At the end of the two trial periods, the patients received active stimulation until the final evaluation at 1 year. Results: Thirty-six patients (34 women; mean(s. d.) age 45(14) years) underwent peripheral nerve evaluation. Twenty responded and received a permanent stimulator. A positive response was observed in 12 of 20 and 11 of 20 patients after active and sham stimulation periods respectively (P = 0.746). Pain related to the device occurred in five patients and wound infection or haematoma in three, leading to definitive removal of the pulse generator in two patients. At 1 year, 11 of the 20 patients with an implanted device continued to respond. Stimulation had no significant effect on colonic transit time. Conclusion: These results do not support the recommendation of permanent implantation of a pulse generator in patients with refractory constipation who initially responded to temporary nerve stimulation. Registration number: NCT01629303 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据