4.5 Article

Does sacral nerve stimulation improve global pelvic function in women?

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 848-857

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/codi.12181

关键词

Faecal incontinence; questionnaire; pelvic floor; sacral nerve stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Many women undergoing sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence have coexisting pelvic floor dysfunction. We used a global pelvic-floor assessment questionnaire to evaluate the effect of sacral neuromodulation on non-bowel related symptomatology. Method The electronic Personnel Assessment Questionnaire - Pelvic Floor (ePAQ-PF) is a validated Web-based electronic pelvic floor questionnaire. Women with faecal incontinence underwent assessment using the ePAQ. Pre- and poststimulator data were analysed over a 4.5year period. Results Forty-three women (mean age 56.5 years; median follow up 6.8 months) were included. All (100%) had urinary symptoms, 81.4% had vaginal symptoms and 85.7% described some sexual dysfunction. There was a significant improvement in faecal incontinence and in bowel-related quality of life (P < 0.005) as well as in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)-related symptoms (P < 0.01) and in bowel-related sexual heath (P < 0.01). Symptoms of vaginal prolapse significantly improved (P = 0.05). There was also improvement in symptoms of overactive bladder (P = 0.005) and in urinary-related qual-ity of life (P < 0.05). A global health improvement was reported in 58.1%, mainly in bowel evacuation (P < 0.01) and in vaginal pain and sensation (P < 0.05). In sexually active female patients, significant improvements in vaginal and bowel-related sexual health were seen (P < 0.005). Improvement in general sex life following stimulation was reported in 53.3%. Conclusion A Web-based electronic pelvic-floor assessment questionnaire has demonstrated global improvement in pelvic floor function in bowel, urinary, vaginal and sexual dimensions in women following sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence.

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

4.5
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