Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2009
Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: response rate, satisfaction and the value of preoperative investigation in patient selection.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Vallet C, Parc Y, Lupinacci R, Shields C, Parc R, Tiret E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Before undergoing sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for faecal incontinence (FI), patients are investigated with morphologic, dynamic and electrophysiologic tests. The purpose of our study was to evaluate their value in the selection of patients who may benefit most from neuromodulation.
METHOD: If temporary stimulation resulted in a good objective response, a permanent neuromodulator was implanted. Patients were reviewed at 3 months and then at 6 monthly intervals. Asked by telephone, patient's satisfaction was described as good, satisfactory or poor.
RESULTS: Forty-five consecutive patients (41 females, median age 59 years) with FI (Wexner 16.1 +/- 2.9) underwent SNS. Temporary stimulation was successful in 32 (71)% patients. At a median follow-up of 33 months, the neuromodulator remained in place in 25 (55%) patients, two do whom switched it off, leaving 23 (51%) with a functioning neuromodulator. There was no statistically significant difference between the characteristics (including manometry, ultrasound and electrophysiology) of patients undergoing implantation (n = 32) or not (n = 13) and those with or without a functioning stimulator (n = 23: n = 13). In the 23 patients with a functioning stimulator the result was good in 12, satisfactory in five and poor in six. There was no statistically significant difference in the patient characteristics between those with a good result (n = 12) and the remainder (n = 32).
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that investigation for FI does not facilitate patient selection for SNS and cannot be used to predict outcome.
METHOD: If temporary stimulation resulted in a good objective response, a permanent neuromodulator was implanted. Patients were reviewed at 3 months and then at 6 monthly intervals. Asked by telephone, patient's satisfaction was described as good, satisfactory or poor.
RESULTS: Forty-five consecutive patients (41 females, median age 59 years) with FI (Wexner 16.1 +/- 2.9) underwent SNS. Temporary stimulation was successful in 32 (71)% patients. At a median follow-up of 33 months, the neuromodulator remained in place in 25 (55%) patients, two do whom switched it off, leaving 23 (51%) with a functioning neuromodulator. There was no statistically significant difference between the characteristics (including manometry, ultrasound and electrophysiology) of patients undergoing implantation (n = 32) or not (n = 13) and those with or without a functioning stimulator (n = 23: n = 13). In the 23 patients with a functioning stimulator the result was good in 12, satisfactory in five and poor in six. There was no statistically significant difference in the patient characteristics between those with a good result (n = 12) and the remainder (n = 32).
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that investigation for FI does not facilitate patient selection for SNS and cannot be used to predict outcome.