A systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation for low anterior resection syndrome

International Continence Society best practice statement for use of sacral neuromodulation

AIMS

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is an accepted therapy for a variety of conditions. However, despite over 20 years of experience, it remains a specialized procedure with a number of subtleties. Here we present the recommendations issued from the International Continence Society (ICS) SNM Consensus Panel.

METHODS

Under the auspices of the ICS, eight urologists, three colorectal surgeons and two urogynecologists, covering a wide breadth of geographic and specialty interest representation, met in January 2017 to discuss best practices for neuromodulation. Suggestions for statements were submitted in advance and specific topics were assigned to committee members, who prepared and presented supporting data to the group, at which time each topic was discussed in depth. Best practice statements were formulated based on available data. This document was then circulated to multiple external reviewers after which final edits were made and approved by the group.

RESULTS

The present recommendations, based on the most relevant data available in the literature, as well as expert opinion, address a variety of specific and at times problematic issues associated with SNM. These include the use of SNM for a variety of underlying conditions, need for pre-procedural testing, use of staged versus single-stage procedures, screening for success during the trial phase, ideal anesthesia, device implantation, post-procedural management, trouble-shooting loss of device function, and future directions for research.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines undoubtedly constitute a reference document, which will help urologists, gynecologists, and colorectal surgeons optimize their use of SNM for refractory urinary urgency and frequency, UUI, NOR, and FI.

The "rectosigmoid brake": Review of an emerging neuromodulation target for colorectal functional disorders

The regulation of gastrointestinal motility encompasses several overlapping mechanisms including highly regulated and coordinated neurohormonal circuits. Various feedback mechanisms or "brakes" have been proposed. While duodenal, jejunal, and ileal brakes are well described, a putative distal colonic brake is less well defined. Despite the high prevalence of colonic motility disorders, there is little knowledge of colonic motility owing to difficulties with organ access and technical difficulties in recording detailed motor patterns along its entire length. The motility of the colon is not under voluntary control. A wide range of motor patterns is seen, with long intervals of intestinal quiescence between them. In addition, the use of traditional manometric catheters to record contractile activity of the colon has been limited by the low number of widely spaced sensors, which has resulted in the misinterpretation of colonic motor patterns. The recent advent of high-resolution (HR) manometry is revolutionising the understanding of gastrointestinal motor patterns. It has now been observed that the most common motor patterns in the colon are repetitive two to six cycles per minute (cpm) propagating events in the distal colon. These motor patterns are prominent soon after a meal, originate most frequently in the rectosigmoid region, and travel in the retrograde direction. The distal prominence and the origin of these motor patterns raise the possibility of them serving as a braking mechanism, or the "rectosigmoid brake," to limit rectal filling. This review aims to describe what is known about the "rectosigmoid brake," including its physiological and clinical significance and potential therapeutic applications.

Sacral nerve stimulation can be an effective treatment for low anterior resection syndrome

AIM

Sacral nerve stimulation has become a preferred method for the treatment of faecal incontinence in patients who fail conservative (non-operative) therapy. In previous small studies, sacral nerve stimulation has demonstrated improvement of faecal incontinence and quality of life in a majority of patients with low anterior resection syndrome. We evaluated the efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of low anterior resection syndrome using a recently developed and validated low anterior resection syndrome instrument to quantify symptoms.

METHOD

A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of low anterior resection syndrome was performed. Procedures took place in the Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery at two academic tertiary medical centres. Pre- and post-treatment Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Scores and Low Anterior Resection Syndrome scores were assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (50% men) suffering from low anterior resection syndrome with a mean age of 67.8 (±10.8) years underwent sacral nerve test stimulation. Ten patients (83%) proceeded to permanent implantation. Median time from anterior resection to stimulator implant was 16 (range 5-108) months. At a median follow-up of 19.5 (range 4-42) months, there were significant improvements in Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Scores and Low Anterior Resection Syndrome scores (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Sacral nerve stimulation improved symptoms in patients suffering from low anterior resection syndrome and may therefore be a viable treatment option.

Short-term outcome of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for low anterior resection syndrome: results of a pilot study

AIM

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is a minimally invasive procedure which has been demonstrated to be effective in faecal/urinary incontinence but has never been tested in low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). The severity of LARS may be evaluated by the LARS score, but rectal cancer treatments may also affect urinary and sexual function, which are not explored by the LARS score. The Three Axial Perineal Evaluation (TAPE) score is a new validated index addressing the overall pelvic floor functions. This study aims to assess the efficacy of PTNS in LARS patients and to evaluate the results by the LARS and TAPE scores.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients operated on for rectal cancer between 2009 and 2014 complaining of LARS underwent PTNS (12 sessions of 30 min each). Six patients reported urinary incontinence and all except two (men) were sexually inactive. The LARS score and the TAPE score questionnaires were administered at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

At 6 months' follow-up, nine patients reported a significant improvement of faecal incontinence and 3/6 an improvement of urinary incontinence after PTNS. Median LARS score significantly decreased from 32 to 27 (P = 0.009), while the median TAPE score improved significantly from 55 to 58 (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

PTNS may be a further option in the treatment of selected patients with LARS and in addition may improve associated urinary incontinence. The severity of LARS can be detected by the LARS score; however, the adoption of the TAPE score is preferred in the case of concomitant urinary and/or sexual problems not explored by the LARS score.

Sacral nerve stimulation can alleviate symptoms of bowel dysfunction after colorectal resections

AIM

Poor functional results, such as faecal incontinence (FI), low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) or high stool frequency, can occur after colorectal resections, including proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), rectal resection and left hemicolectomy. Management of such patients is problematic, and some case reports have demonstrated the effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in these situations. Our aim was to analyse the effectiveness of SNS on poor functional results and on quality of life in patients after treatment with different types of colorectal resection.

METHOD

At five university hospitals from 2006 to 2014, patients with poor functional results after rectal resection, IPAA or left hemicolectomy underwent a staged SNS implant procedure. Failure was defined by the absence or insufficient improvement (< 50%) of FI episodes.

RESULTS

SNS for bowel dysfunction was performed in 16 patients after rectal resection with coloanal anastomosis, left hemicolectomy with colorectal anastomosis or IPAA. Two (13%) cases of primary failure were observed after the percutaneous stimulation test. Median frequency of stool, FI episodes and urgency were significantly improved in 14 patients. Wexner and LARS scores were also significantly improved for 14 patients. When we compared results according to the type of colorectal surgery (IPAA, rectal resection or left hemicolectomy), median frequencies of stool and urgency, Wexner and LARS scores were still significantly improved. Overall success rate was 75% (12/16 patients) in intention-to-treat analysis and 86% (12/14 patients with permanent electrode) in per-protocol analysis.

CONCLUSION

SNS seems to improve bowel dysfunction following rectal resection, left hemicolectomy or IPAA.

Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence following proctectomy

AIM

This study assessed the effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for faecal incontinence (FI) following proctectomy with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis.

METHODS

An Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved database identified patients treated for FI following proctectomy (SNM-P) for benign or malignant disease, who were matched 1:1 according to preoperative Cleveland Clinic Florida Faecal Incontinence Scores (CCF-FIS) with patients without proctectomy (SNM-NP). Primary outcome was change in CCF-FIS.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (seven women) were in the SNM-P group and 12 (all women) were in the SNM-NP group. In the SNM-P group, six patients underwent proctectomy for low rectal cancer and five received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Five patients had handsewn anastomosis, and one had stapled coloanal anastomosis. One lead explantation occurred after a failed 2-week SNM percutaneous trial. Six patients underwent proctectomy for benign conditions. Within-group analyses revealed significant improvement in CCF-FIS in the SNM-P group (reduction from a score of 18 to a score of 14; P = 0.02), which was more profound for benign disease (reduction from 14.5 to 8.5) than for rectal cancer (reduction from 19.5 to 15). SNM was explanted in 66% and 33% of patients after proctectomy for malignant and benign conditions, respectively. In the SNM-NP group, 41% underwent overlapping sphincteroplasty. One patient received chemoradiation for anal cancer. Within-group analysis for the SNM-NP group showed significant improvement in CCF-FIS (a reduction from 17.5 to 4.0; P = 0.003). There was significant improvement in CCF-FIS in patients without previous proctectomy (mean delta CCF-FIS: 11.1 vs 4.7; P = 0.011). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) reaffirmed that controls outperformed proctectomy patients (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

SNM for FI after proctectomy appears less effective than SNM in patients without proctectomy, with high device explantation rates, particularly after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and proctectomy for low rectal cancer.

Sacral neurostimulation for low anterior resection syndrome after radical resection for rectal cancer: evaluation of treatment with the LARS score

PURPOSE

Sacral neurostimulation (SNS) has proven to be an effective treatment modality for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). The primary aim of this study is to investigate the impact of SNS on all symptoms of LARS, not merely on fecal incontinence. Furthermore, we wanted to evaluate whether the LARS score could be useful as a tool to evaluate SNS treatment.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with minor or major LARS, unresponsive to conservative therapy for fecal incontinence, who underwent sacral neuromodulation for LARS at Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium, were prospectively enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint was the reduction in the severity of LARS. This was assessed by validated questionnaires: the LARS score and the Wexner score.

RESULTS

Eleven patients underwent definite implantation of the SNS device. All patients showed a substantial decrease in their Wexner scores: The mean score was reduced from 17.7 to 4.6 (Z: 2.93; p: 0.0033). Additionally, the mean LARS score dropped from 36.9 to 11.4 (Z: 2.93; p: 0.0033). Furthermore, there was a significant amelioration of all symptoms of LARS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that SNS is effective for all symptoms of LARS. The authors believe that in patients who receive SNS for LARS, it could be useful to determine the LARS score to evaluate the complexity of the symptoms and their response to treatment.

Successful Restoration of Fecal Continence Using Sacral Nerve Stimulation Following Chemoradiation and Transanal Excision of an Anal Melanoma With Partial Internal Anal Sphincter Resection: A Case Report

OBJECTIVE

This case report provides evidence for our hypothesis that use of a sacral nerve stimulator may be considered in patients with fecal incontinence (FI) following chemoradiation and transanal operations in the setting of cancer including partial internal sphincter resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 57-year-old female with a history of anal melanoma was treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by wide local, transanal tumor excision with partial internal anal sphincter resection that resulted in ≥2 full fecal incontinent episodes/week with gas, liquid, and solid stool leakage ≥10/day requiring pad changes. After seven years of progressive FI, a sacral nerve stimulator was implanted following pre-placement anorectal manometry. Pre and post implant validated Cleveland Cleveland Clinic/Wexner Fecal Incontinence questionnaires and daily stool diaries (Medtronic) were completed. Data was stored in and collected from the patient's electronic health record.

RESULTS

The patient had a single episode of FI during the two week trial phase, but reports complete resolution of FI, urgency, and leakage since implantation through her 1-year post-implant follow-up visit. Additional improvements were noted in FI questionnaires: Cleveland Clinic/Wexner Fecal Incontinence Score of 17 at baseline to 3 post-implant and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Score of 3.585 at baseline to 3.93 post-implant.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of sacral nerve stimulation may not be as limited as previously thought and should be considered for cancer survivors following chemoradiation and sphincter-sparing rectal and transanal resections. Though this single case report is suggestive, further research is necessary and would include a research protocol designed specifically for patients who have undergone chemoradiation and/or sphincter-sparing operations. We are currently working on such protocol at our institution.

Conversations for providers caring for patients with rectal cancer: Comparison of long-term patient-centered outcomes for patients with low rectal cancer facing ostomy or sphincter-sparing surgery

For some patients with low rectal cancer, ostomy (with elimination into a pouch) may be the only realistic surgical option. However, some patients have a choice between ostomy and sphincter-sparing surgery. Sphincter-sparing surgery has been preferred over ostomy because it offers preservation of normal bowel function. However, this surgery can cause incontinence and bowel dysfunction. Increasingly, it has become evident that certain patients who are eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery may not be well served by the surgery, and construction of an ostomy may be better. No validated assessment tool or decision aid has been published to help newly diagnosed patients decide between the two surgeries or to help physicians elicit long-term surgical outcomes. Furthermore, comparison of long-term outcomes and late effects after the two surgeries has not been synthesized. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes controlled studies that compared long-term survivorship outcomes between these two surgical groups. The goals are: 1) to improve understanding and shared decision-making among surgeons, oncologists, primary care providers, patients, and caregivers; 2) to increase the patient's participation in the decision; 3) to alert the primary care provider to patient challenges that could be addressed by provider attention and intervention; and 4) ultimately, to improve patients' long-term quality of life. This report includes discussion points for health care providers to use with their patients during initial discussions of ostomy and sphincter-sparing surgery as well as questions to ask during follow-up examinations to ascertain any long-term challenges facing the patient. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:387-397. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

The Effect of Biofeedback Therapy on Anorectal Function After the Reversal of Temporary Stoma When Administered During the Temporary Stoma Period in Rectal Cancer Patients With Sphincter-Saving Surgery: The Interim Report of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

We evaluated the effect of biofeedback therapy (BFT) on anorectal function after stoma closure when administered during the interval of temporary stoma after sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer.Impaired anorectal function is common after lower anterior resections, though no specific treatment options are currently available to prevent this adverse outcome.Fifty-six patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy after sphincter-preserving surgery with temporary stoma were randomized into 2 groups: group 1 (received BFT during the temporary stoma period) and group 2 (did not receive BFT). To evaluate anorectal function, anorectal manometry was performed in all patients and subjective symptoms were evaluated using the Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score. The present study is a report at 6 months after rectal resection.Forty-seven patients, including 21 in group 1 and 26 in group 2, were evaluated by anorectal manometry. Twelve patients (57.1%) in group 1 and 13 patients (50%) in group 2 were scored above 9 points of Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score, which is the reference value for fecal incontinence (P = 0.770). With time, there was a significant difference (P = 0.002) in the change of mean resting pressure according to time sequence between the BFT and control groups.BFT during the temporary stoma interval had no effect on preventing anorectal dysfunction after temporary stoma reversal at 6 months after rectal resection. However, BFT might be helpful for maintaining resting anal sphincter tone (NCT01661829).

Low anterior resection syndrome: a survey of the members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC), and the Spanish Society of Coloproctology (AECP)

BACKGROUND

Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is frequent following sphincter-sparing procedures for rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess surgeons' awareness of LARS.

DESIGN

This was a survey study.

SETTINGS

Members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC), and the Spanish Society of Coloproctology (AECP).

PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred thirty-four surgeons from the ASCRS and 150 from the Spanish Societies completed a 23-item electronic questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Surgeons' opinions regarding different aspects of LARS.

RESULTS

The proportion of rectal cancer patients undergoing sphincter-sparing operations ranged between 71 and 90 %. Low anterior resection with end-to-end anastomosis was the most frequently cited procedure after mesorectal excision. More than 80 % of participants were recognized to be moderately or extremely aware of the condition, but regarding the method used to assess LARS, the majority relied on clinical manifestations. Around 35 % of surgeons considered that severe LARS developed in less than 40 % of patients. The most important factor related to defecatory function impairment in the surgeons' opinion was the distance from the anal margin to anastomosis. Other factors thought to be involved were anastomotic leakage, preoperative radiation therapy, age, and postoperative radiotherapy, with similar percentages in the two groups of surgeons. Lifestyle changes and dietary measures associated with or without drug treatment was the modality of choice. The experience with transanal irrigation or sacral nerve stimulation was limited. It was considered that <30 % of patients chronically suffer from severe LARS with significant quality of life impairment.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this study are the international mix and expert status of the specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of patients suffering from LARS was underestimated despite reporting good knowledge of the syndrome. Validated methods for the assessment of LARS were rarely used. Deficient awareness regarding risk factors for LARS was documented. Knowledge of therapeutic options was also limited.