Surgery today · 2014
Prospective clinical audit of two neuromodulatory treatments for fecal incontinence: sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS).
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hotouras Alexander, Murphy Jamie, Allison Marion, Curry Anne, Williams Norman S, Knowles Charles H, Chan Christopher L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two types of neuromodulation are currently practised for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI): sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). This study compares these therapies, as no data exist to prospectively assess their relative efficacy and costs.
METHODS: The subjects of this study were two distinct cohorts undergoing SNS (between 2003 and 2008) or PTNS (2008-onwards) for FI. Clinical outcomes assessed at 3 months included incontinence scores and the number of weekly incontinence episodes. The direct medical costs for each procedure were calculated from the audited expenditure of our unit.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (94.6 % women) underwent permanent SNS and 146 (87.7 % women) underwent PTNS. The mean pre-treatment incontinence score (± SD) was greater in the SNS cohort (14 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 4) and the mean post-treatment incontinence scores were similar for the two therapies (9 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 4), with a greater effect size evident in the SNS patients. In a 'pseudo case-control' analysis with 37 "matched" patients, the effect of both treatments was similar. The cost of treating a patient for 1 year was £ 11,374 ($ 18,223) for permanent SNS vs. £ 1740 ($ 2784) for PTNS.
CONCLUSION: Given the lesser cost and invasive nature of PTNS, where both techniques are available, a trial of PTNS could be considered for all patients.
METHODS: The subjects of this study were two distinct cohorts undergoing SNS (between 2003 and 2008) or PTNS (2008-onwards) for FI. Clinical outcomes assessed at 3 months included incontinence scores and the number of weekly incontinence episodes. The direct medical costs for each procedure were calculated from the audited expenditure of our unit.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (94.6 % women) underwent permanent SNS and 146 (87.7 % women) underwent PTNS. The mean pre-treatment incontinence score (± SD) was greater in the SNS cohort (14 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 4) and the mean post-treatment incontinence scores were similar for the two therapies (9 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 4), with a greater effect size evident in the SNS patients. In a 'pseudo case-control' analysis with 37 "matched" patients, the effect of both treatments was similar. The cost of treating a patient for 1 year was £ 11,374 ($ 18,223) for permanent SNS vs. £ 1740 ($ 2784) for PTNS.
CONCLUSION: Given the lesser cost and invasive nature of PTNS, where both techniques are available, a trial of PTNS could be considered for all patients.