Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2007
Is a morphologically intact anal sphincter necessary for success with sacral nerve modulation in patients with faecal incontinence?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Melenhorst J, Koch S M, Uludag O, van Gemert W G, Baeten C G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Sacral nerve modulation (SNM) for the treatment of faecal incontinence was originally performed in patients with an intact anal sphincter or after repair of a sphincter defect. There is evidence that SNM can be performed in patients with faecal incontinence and an anal sphincter defect.
METHOD: Two groups of patients were analysed retrospectively to determine whether SNM is as effective in patients with faecal incontinence associated with an anal sphincter defect as in those with a morphologically intact anal sphincter following anal repair (AR). Patients in group A had had an AR resulting in an intact anal sphincter ring. Group B included patients with a sphincter defect which was not primarily repaired. Both groups underwent SNM. All patients had undergone a test stimulation percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) followed by a subchronic test over 3 weeks. If the PNE was successful, a permanent SNM electrode was implanted. Follow-up visits for the successfully permanent implanted patients were scheduled at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months and annually thereafter.
RESULTS: Group A consisted of 20 (19 women) patients. Eighteen (90%) had a positive subchronic test stimulation. Twelve patients had a successful SNM implant during middle-term follow-up. Group B consisted of 20 women. The size of the defect in the anal sphincter varied between 17% and 33% of the anal circumference. Fourteen (70%) had a positive subchronic test stimulation. Twelve patients had a successful SNM implant during middle-term follow-up. In both groups, the mean number of incontinence episodes decreased significantly with SNM (test vs baseline: P = 0.0001, P = 0.0002). There was no significant difference in resting and squeeze pressures during SNM in group A, but in group B squeeze pressure had increased significantly at 24 months. Comparison of patient characteristics and outcome between groups A and B revealed no statistical differences.
CONCLUSION: A morphologically intact anal sphincter is not a prerequisite for success in the treatment of faecal incontinence with SNM. An anal sphincter defect of <33% of the circumference can be effectively treated primarily with SNM without repair.
METHOD: Two groups of patients were analysed retrospectively to determine whether SNM is as effective in patients with faecal incontinence associated with an anal sphincter defect as in those with a morphologically intact anal sphincter following anal repair (AR). Patients in group A had had an AR resulting in an intact anal sphincter ring. Group B included patients with a sphincter defect which was not primarily repaired. Both groups underwent SNM. All patients had undergone a test stimulation percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) followed by a subchronic test over 3 weeks. If the PNE was successful, a permanent SNM electrode was implanted. Follow-up visits for the successfully permanent implanted patients were scheduled at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months and annually thereafter.
RESULTS: Group A consisted of 20 (19 women) patients. Eighteen (90%) had a positive subchronic test stimulation. Twelve patients had a successful SNM implant during middle-term follow-up. Group B consisted of 20 women. The size of the defect in the anal sphincter varied between 17% and 33% of the anal circumference. Fourteen (70%) had a positive subchronic test stimulation. Twelve patients had a successful SNM implant during middle-term follow-up. In both groups, the mean number of incontinence episodes decreased significantly with SNM (test vs baseline: P = 0.0001, P = 0.0002). There was no significant difference in resting and squeeze pressures during SNM in group A, but in group B squeeze pressure had increased significantly at 24 months. Comparison of patient characteristics and outcome between groups A and B revealed no statistical differences.
CONCLUSION: A morphologically intact anal sphincter is not a prerequisite for success in the treatment of faecal incontinence with SNM. An anal sphincter defect of <33% of the circumference can be effectively treated primarily with SNM without repair.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Anal CanalCohort StudiesElectric Stimulation TherapyElectrodes, ImplantedFecal IncontinenceFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLumbosacral PlexusMaleProbabilityQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionReference ValuesRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSeverity of Illness IndexStatistics, NonparametricTreatment Outcome