Sacral nerve stimulation induces changes in the pelvic floor and rectum that improve continence and quality of life

Sacral neuromodulation with the InterStim™ system for faecal incontinence: results from a prospective French multicentre observational study

AIM

The aim of this work was to evaluate the effectiveness, patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) and the safety of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) with the InterStim^TM system for the treatment of faecal incontinence (FI) and establish whether results published predominantly by expert sites are generalisable.

METHOD

This is a prospective, multicentre, observational study that invited all French sites treating FI with the InterStim™ system to enrol subjects indicated for an SNM therapy evaluation. Data were collected at three follow-up visits within 1 and 15 months. Therapeutic effectiveness was evaluated by the reduction in leakages per week and improvements over time in the ability to defer defaecation and QoL (as measured with the Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life score). Safety was assessed through reported adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 221 subjects with a mean age of 62.1 years were tested (184 women) and 178 received a permanent implant. For all implanted subjects with diary data at baseline and follow-up, a reduction in leakage of more than 50% was observed in 80%, 76% and 83% at 1-3, 4-8 and 9-15 months, respectively. The mean number of leakage episodes and urgency improved significantly compared with the baseline (p < 0.0001). Subjects showed improvements in QoL and time to defer defaecation and were generally satisfied with their therapy. The main device-related adverse event was the requirement to undertake reprogramming (in 52% of subjects with actions following an event). The rates of infection (in 6% of subjects) and surgical revision (in 10% of subjects) were in agreement with literature reports.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the clinical effectiveness, safety and positive effect of SNM on QoL as well as high patient satisfaction for the treatment of FI in real-life.

Adverse events of sacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence reported to the federal drug administration

AIM: To investigate the nature and severity of AE related to sacral neurostimulation (SNS).

METHODS: Based on Pubmed and Embase searches, we identified published trials and case series of SNS for fecal incontinence (FI) and extracted data on adverse events, requiring an active intervention. Those problems were operationally defined as infection, device removal explant or need for lead and/or generator replacement. In addition, we analyzed the Manufacturer and User Device Experience registry of the Federal Drug Administration for the months of August - October of 2015. Events were included if the report specifically mentioned gastrointestinal (GI), bowel and FI as indication and if the narrative did not focus on bladder symptoms. The classification, reporter, the date of the recorded complaint, time between initial implant and report, the type of AE, steps taken and outcome were extracted from the report. In cases of device removal or replacement, we looked for confirmatory comments by healthcare providers or the manufacturer.

RESULTS: Published studies reported adverse events and reoperation rates for 1954 patients, followed for 27 (1-117) mo. Reoperation rates were 18.6% (14.2-23.9) with device explants accounting for 10.0% (7.8-12.7) of secondary surgeries; rates of device replacement or explant or pocket site and electrode revisions increased with longer follow up. During the period examined, the FDA received 1684 reports of AE related to SNS with FI or GI listed as indication. A total of 652 reports met the inclusion criteria, with 52.7% specifically listing FI. Lack or loss of benefit (48.9%), pain or dysesthesia (27.8%) and complication at the generator implantation site (8.7%) were most commonly listed. Complaints led to secondary surgeries in 29.7% of the AE. Reoperations were performed to explant (38.2%) or replace (46.5%) the device or a lead, or revise the generator pocket (14.6%). Conservative management changes mostly involved changes in stimulation parameters (44.5%), which successfully addressed concerns in 35.2% of cases that included information about treatment results.

CONCLUSION: With reoperation rates around 20%, physicians need to fully disclose the high likelihood of complications and secondary interventions and exhaust non-invasive treatments, including transcutaneous stimulation paradigms.

Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation are both socially-embarrassing and physically-disabling conditions that impair quality of life. For both, surgery may be required in a minority of people when more conservative measures fail. However, the invasiveness and irreversible nature of direct surgery on bowel and sphincter muscles, poor long-term outcomes and well-established compIications makes such procedures unappealing for these benign conditions. A less-invasive surgical option to treat faecal incontinence and constipation is direct, low-voltage stimulation of the sacral nerve roots, termed sacral nerve stimulation (SNS). SNS has become the first line surgical treatment for FI in people failing conservative therapies. Its value in the treatment of constipation is less clear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sacral nerve stimulation using implanted electrodes for the treatment of faecal incontinence and constipation in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 5 February 2015), EMBASE (1 January 1947 to 2015 Week 5), and the reference lists of retrieved relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing the effects of SNS for faecal incontinence or constipation in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed the methodological quality of the included trials, and undertook data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

Six crossover trials and two parallel group trials were included.Six trials assessed the effects of SNS for FI. In the parallel group trial conducted by Tjandra, 53 participants with severe FI in the SNS group experienced fewer episodes of faecal incontinence compared to the control group who received optimal medical therapy (mean difference (MD) -5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.15 to -1.25 at 3 months; MD -6.30, 95% CI -10.34 to -2.26 at 12 months). Adverse events were reported in a proportion of participants: pain at implant site (6%), seroma (2%) and excessive tingling in the vaginal region (9%).In the parallel group trial carried out by Thin, 15 participants with FI in the SNS group experienced fewer episodes of FI compared with the percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) group (MD -3.00, 95% CI -6.61 to 0.61 at 3 months; MD -3.20, 95% CI -7.14 to 0.74 at 12 months). Adverse events were reported in three participants: mild ipsilateral leg pain during temporary testing (n = 1); and stimulator-site pain following insertion of neurostimulator (n = 2).In the crossover trial by Leroi 7 of 34 recruited participants were excluded from the crossover due mainly to complications or immediate device failure. Twenty-four of the remaining 27 participants while still blinded chose the period of stimulation they had preferred. Outcomes were reported separately for 19 participants who preferred the 'on' and five who preferred the 'off' period. For the group of 19, the median (range) episodes of faecal incontinence per week fell from 1.7 (0 to 9) during the 'off' period to 0.7 (0 to 5) during the 'on' period; for the group of five, however, the median (range) rose from 1.7 (0 to 11) during the 'off' period compared with 3.7 (0 to 11) during the 'on' period. Four of 27 participants experienced an adverse event resulting in removal of the stimulator.In the crossover trial by Sørensen and colleagues, participants did not experience any FI episodes in either the one-week 'on' or 'off' periods.In the crossover trial by Vaizey, participants reported an average of six, and one, episodes of faecal incontinence per week during the 'off' and 'on' periods respectively in two participants with FI. Neither study reported adverse events.In the crossover trial by Kahlke, 14 participants with FI experienced significantly lower episodes of FI per week during the stimulator 'on' (1 (SD, 1.7)) compared with the 'off' period (8.4 (SD, 8.7)). Adverse events reported include: haematoma formation (n = 3); misplacement of tined lead (1); and pain at stimulator site (n = 1).Two trials assessed SNS for constipation. In the Kenefick trial, the two participants experienced an average of two bowel movements per week during the 'off' crossover period, compared with five during the 'on' period. Abdominal pain and bloating occurred 79% of the time during the 'off' period compared with 33% during the 'on' period. No adverse events occurred. In contrast, in the trial by Dinning with 59 participants, SNS did not improve frequency of bowel movements and 73 adverse events were reported, which included pain at site of the implanted pulse generator (32), wound infection (12), and urological (17) events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence from the included trials suggests that SNS can improve continence in a proportion of patients with faecal incontinence. However, SNS did not improve symptoms in patients with constipation. In addition, adverse events occurred in some patients where these were reported. Rigorous high quality randomised trials are needed to allow the effects of SNS for these conditions to be assessed with more certainty.

Systematic review of the impact of sacral neuromodulation on clinical symptoms and gastrointestinal physiology

Background

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has emerged as a treatment option for faecal incontinence (FI). However, its objective effect on symptoms and anorectal function is inconsistently described. This study aimed to systematically review the impact of SNM on clinical symptoms and gastrointestinal physiology in patients with FI, including factors that may predict treatment outcome.

Methods

An electronic search of MEDLINE (1946–2014)/EMBASE database was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Articles that reported the relevant outcome measures following SNM were included. Clinical outcomes evaluated included: frequency of FI episodes, FI severity score and success rates. Its impact on anorectal and gastrointestinal physiology was also evaluated.

Results

Of 554 citations identified, data were extracted from 81 eligible studies. Meta‐analysis of the data was precluded due to lack of a comparison group in most studies. After permanent SNM, ‘perfect’ continence was noted in 13–88% of patients. Most studies reported a reduction in weekly FI episodes (median difference of the mean −7.0 (range: −24.8 to −2.7)) and Wexner scores (median difference of the mean −9 (−14.9 to −6)). A trend towards improved resting and squeeze anal pressures and a reduction in rectal sensory volumes were noted. Studies failed to identify any consistent impact on other physiological parameters or clinicophysiological factors associated with success.

Conclusion

SNM improves clinical symptoms and reduces number of incontinence episodes and severity scores in patients with FI, in part by improving anorectal physiological function. However, intervention studies with standardized outcome measures and physiological techniques are required to robustly assess the physiological impact of SNM.

Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation: a European consensus statement

AIM

In Europe during the last decade sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) or sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has been used to treat faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation. Despite this, there is little consensus on baseline investigations, patient selection and operative technique. A modified Delphi process was conducted to seek consensus on the current practice of SNS/SNM for FI and constipation.

METHOD

A systematic literature search of SNS for FI and constipation was conducted using PubMed. A set of questions derived from the search and expert opinion were answered on-line on two occasions by an international panel of specialists from Europe. A 1-day face-to-face meeting of the experts finalized the discussion.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-three articles were identified from the literature search, of which 147 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two specialists in FI and constipation from Europe participated. Agreement was achieved on 43 (86%) of 50 domains including the set-up of service, patient selection, baseline investigations, operative technique and programming of the device. The median of agreement was 95% (35-100%).

CONCLUSION

Consensus was achieved on the majority of domains of SNS/SNM for FI and constipation. This should serve as a benchmark for safe and quality practice of SNS/SNM in Europe.

Prospective clinical audit of two neuromodulatory treatments for fecal incontinence: sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS)

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.

Current management of fecal incontinence: Choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes

The severity of fecal incontinence widely varies and can have dramatic devastating impacts on a person’s life. Fecal incontinence is common, though it is often under-reported by patients. In addition to standard treatment options, new treatments have been developed during the past decade to attempt to effectively treat fecal incontinence with minimal morbidity. Non-operative treatments include dietary modifications, medications, and biofeedback therapy. Currently used surgical treatments include repair (sphincteroplasty), stimulation (sacral nerve stimulation or posterior tibial nerve stimulation), replacement (artificial bowel sphincter or muscle transposition) and diversion (stoma formation). Newer augmentation treatments such as radiofrequency energy delivery and injectable materials, are minimally invasive tools that may be good options before proceeding to surgery in some patients with mild fecal incontinence. In general, more invasive surgical treatments are now reserved for moderate to severe fecal incontinence. Functional and quality of life related outcomes, as well as potential complications of the treatment must be considered and the treatment of fecal incontinence must be individualized to the patient. General indications, techniques, and outcomes profiles for the various treatments of fecal incontinence are discussed in detail. Choosing the most effective treatment for the individual patient is essential to achieve optimal outcomes in the treatment of fecal incontinence.

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of neuromodulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Over the past 18 years neuromodulation therapies have gained support as treatments for faecal incontinence (FI); sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is the most established of these. A systematic review was performed of current evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of neuromodulation treatments for FI.

METHODS

The review adhered to the PRISMA framework. A comprehensive search of the literature included PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews. Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were completed in a systematic fashion.

RESULTS

For SNS, 321 citations were identified initially, of which 61 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of studies on other neuromodulation techniques, 11 were eligible for review: seven on percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and four on transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS). On intention-to-treat, the median (range) success rates for SNS were 63 (33-66), 58 (52-81) and 54 (50-58) per cent in the short, medium and long terms respectively. The success rate for PTNS was 59 per cent at the longest reported follow-up of 12 months. SNS, PTNS and TTNS techniques also resulted in improvements in Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score and quality-of-life measures. Despite significant use of neuromodulation in treatment of FI, there is still no consensus on outcome reporting in terms of measures used, aetiologies assessed, length of follow-up or assessment standards.

CONCLUSION

Emerging data for SNS suggest maintenance of its initial therapeutic effect into the long term. The clinical effectiveness of PTNS is comparable to that of SNS at 12 months, although there is no evidence to support its continued effectiveness after this period. PTNS may be a useful treatment before SNS. The clinical effectiveness of TTNS is still uncertain owing to the paucity of available evidence. A consensus to standardize the use of outcome measures is recommended in order that further reports can be compared meaningfully.

Stapled transanal rectal resection and sacral nerve stimulation - impact on faecal incontinence and quality of life

AIM

The aim of the study was to assess the impact of stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) on pre-existing faecal incontinence and quality of life in patients suffering from obstructive defaecation syndrome (ODS) and to evaluate the efficiency of sequential sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for improvement of persistent incontinence after STARR.

METHOD

Thirty-one patients with ODS and major faecal incontinence prior to STARR were prospectively enrolled. The outcome was measured using the Cleveland Clinic Constipation and Incontinence score (CCS, CCIS), Faecal Incontinence Qualities-of-Life Index (FIQL), Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality-of-Life (PAC-QOL) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS).

RESULTS

The overall levels of constipation (CCS from 13.1 ± 3.8 to 6.2 ± 5.4; P < 0.001) and incontinence (CCIS from 12.6 ± 3.2 to 9.4 ± 5.1; P = 0.005) were significantly improved after STARR; concordantly, the global and specific quality of life were significantly improved. Following postoperative constipation and incontinence, three different groups of patients were differentially referred to SNS. In group I (n = 16, 52%), both constipation (CCS from 12.6 ± 4.0 to 3.6 ± 1.9; P < 0.001) and incontinence (CCSI from 12.43 ± 3.2 to 5.1 ± 1.9; P < 0.001) were improved. In group II (n = 8, 25%), only constipation was improved (CCS from 12.3 ± 2.3 to 3.3 ± 2.2; P < 0.001), while incontinence persisted (CCIS from 12.8 ± 2.9 to 13.1 ± 3.1; P > 0.05). In group III (n = 7, 23%) there was no improvement at all. Sacral nerve stimulation was successfully carried out in six (85%) of seven patients in group II (post-SNS CCSI 6.1 ± 1.7; P = 0.01) but failed in five of five patients in group III.

CONCLUSION

Stapled transanal rectal resection improves quality of life in ODS patients with both severe constipation and faecal incontinence. Sacral nerve stimulation may efficiently improve persisting incontinence after STARR in selected patients.