World neurosurgery · 2021
Sacral Anterior Root Stimulation and Visceral Function Outcomes in Spinal Cord Injury-A Systematic Review of the Literature Over Four Decades.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guiho Thomas, Azevedo-Coste Christine, Bauchet Luc, Delleci Claire, Vignes Jean-Rodolphe, Guiraud David, Fattal Charles
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Sacral anterior root stimulation (SARS) was developed 40 years ago to restore urinary and bowel functions to individuals with spinal cord injury. Mostly used to restore lower urinary tract function, SARS implantation is coupled with sacral deafferentation to counteract the problems of chronic detrusor sphincter dyssynergia and detrusor overactivity. In this article, we systematically review 40 years of SARS implantation and assess the medical added value of this approach in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We identified 4 axes of investigation: 1) impact on visceral functions, 2) implantation safety and device reliability, 3) individuals' quality of life, and 4) additional information about the procedure.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed. Three databases were consulted: PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Pascal. A total of 219 abstracts were screened and 38 articles were retained for analysis (1147 implantations).
RESULTS: The SARS technique showed good clinical results (85.9% of individuals used their implant for micturition and 67.9% to ease bowel movements) and improved individual quality of life. Conversely, several sources of complications were reported after implantation (e.g., surgical complications and failure).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising results, a decline in implantations was observed. This decline can be linked to the complication rate, as well as to the development of new therapeutics (e.g., botulinum toxin) and directions for research (spinal cord stimulation) that may have an impact on people. Nevertheless, the lack of alternatives in the short-term suggests that the SARS implant is still relevant for the restoration of visceral functions after spinal cord injury.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed. Three databases were consulted: PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Pascal. A total of 219 abstracts were screened and 38 articles were retained for analysis (1147 implantations).
RESULTS: The SARS technique showed good clinical results (85.9% of individuals used their implant for micturition and 67.9% to ease bowel movements) and improved individual quality of life. Conversely, several sources of complications were reported after implantation (e.g., surgical complications and failure).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite promising results, a decline in implantations was observed. This decline can be linked to the complication rate, as well as to the development of new therapeutics (e.g., botulinum toxin) and directions for research (spinal cord stimulation) that may have an impact on people. Nevertheless, the lack of alternatives in the short-term suggests that the SARS implant is still relevant for the restoration of visceral functions after spinal cord injury.