Outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence in patients refractory to percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation

Baiona's Consensus Statement for Fecal Incontinence. Spanish Association of Coloproctology

Faecal incontinence (FI) is a major health problem, both for individuals and for health systems. It is obvious that, for all these reasons, there is widespread concern for healing it or, at least, reducing as far as possible its numerous undesirable effects, in addition to the high costs it entails. There are different criteria for the diagnostic tests to be carried out and the same applies to the most appropriate treatment, among the numerous options that have proliferated in recent years, not always based on rigorous scientific evidence. For this reason, the Spanish Association of Coloproctology (AECP) proposed to draw up a consensus to serve as a guide for all health professionals interested in the problem, aware, however, that the therapeutic decision must be taken on an individual basis: patient characteristics/experience of the care team. For its development it was adopted the Nominal Group Technique methodology. The Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation were established according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. In addition, expert recommendations were added briefly to each of the items analysed.

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence

Introduction

Faecal incontinence (FI) is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life (QoL). Neuromodulation treatments delivered by members of the multidisciplinary team including sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) are options for FI refractory to conservative management. The aim of this study was to assess whether a successful treatment with one neuromodulation modality corresponds with success in the other.

Methods

A retrospective review of a prospectively managed neuromodulation database identified 15 patients who had undergone both PTNS and SNS. The definition of success of each treatment was a >50% improvement in any of The St. Mark's Incontinence Score, Manchester Health Questionnaire, or weekly faecal urgency or FI episodes.

Results

Complete data from 12 patients was available for assessment and PTNS was delivered as the first treatment in nine patients. Overall, seven patients (58%) had successful PTNS treatment, with 10 (83%) having a successful SNS trials. Of the seven patients who had successful PTNS treatment, six patients (85.4%) went on to have success with SNS. Of the five patients who failed PTNS, four (80%) went on to have SNS success. Five (71%) of those who had positive PTNS outcomes had permanent SNS implantation as their final treatment decision.

Conclusion

This study suggests that there is no clear relationship between successful PTNS treatment and an SNS trial period which may be explained by differing mechanisms of action or the potential placebo effect of PTNS. Further work is required to investigate any association in larger studies to inform clinical practice.

Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is a disabling condition affecting up to 20% of women.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated fecal incontinence assessment in both inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients to propose a diagnostic approach for inflammatory bowel disease trials.

METHODS

We searched on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library for all studies on adult inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients reporting data on fecal incontinence assessment from January 2009 to December 2019.

RESULTS

In total, 328 studies were included; 306 studies enrolled non-inflammatory bowel disease patients and 22 studies enrolled inflammatory bowel disease patients. In non-inflammatory bowel disease trials the most used tools were the Wexner score, fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire, Vaizey score and fecal incontinence severity index (in 187, 91, 62 and 33 studies). Anal manometry was adopted in 41.2% and endoanal ultrasonography in 34.0% of the studies. In 142 studies (46.4%) fecal incontinence evaluation was performed with a single instrument, while in 64 (20.9%) and 100 (32.7%) studies two or more instruments were used. In inflammatory bowel disease studies the Wexner score, Vaizey score and inflammatory bowel disease quality of life questionnaire were the most commonly adopted tools (in five (22.7%), five (22.7%) and four (18.2%) studies). Anal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography were performed in 45.4% and 18.2% of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on prior validation and experience, we propose to use the Wexner score as the first step for fecal incontinence assessment in inflammatory bowel disease trials. Anal manometry and/or endoanal ultrasonography should be taken into account in the case of positive questionnaires.

Comparison of long-term outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for constipation and faecal incontinence with focus on explantation rate, additional visits, and patient satisfaction

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to compare sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for constipation (SNS-C) with SNS for idiopathic faecal incontinence (SNS-IFI) regarding explantation rate, additional visits, and improvement of patient satisfaction 5 years after implantation.

METHODS

From our prospective database (launched in 2009), we extracted all SNS-C patients 5 years post-implantation, and the SNS-IFI patients implanted just before and just after each SNS-C patient. We retrospectively evaluated the explantation rate, number of additional visits, and patient satisfaction using a visual analogue scale (VAS). We hypothesized that compared with those in the SNS-IFI group: (1) the explantation rate would be higher in SNS-C patients, (2) the number of additional visits would be higher in SNS-C patients, and (3) in patients with an active implant at 5 years, the improvement in VAS would be the same.

RESULTS

We included 40 SNS-C patients and 80 SNS-IFI patients. In the SNS-C group 7/40 (17.5%), patients were explanted, compared to 10/80 (12.5%) patients in the SNS-IFI group (p = 0.56). The mean number of additional visits in the SNS-C group was 3.5 (95% CI 2.8-4.1)) and 3.0 (95% CI 2.6-3.6)) in the SNS-IFI group (p = 0.38). Additional visits due to loss of efficacy were significantly higher in the SNS-C patients (p = 0.03). The reduction in VAS score (delta VAS) at 5 years was 37.1 (95% CI 20.9-53.3) in the SNS-C group, and 46.0 (95% CI 37.9-54.0) in the SNS-IFI group (p = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was found regarding explantation rate, number of additional visits, or improvement of VAS at 5 years after SNS implantation between SNS-C patients and SNS-IFI patients.

Success and Complication Rates After Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence and Constipation: A Single-center Follow-up Study

Background/Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the sustainability of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) success in patients with fecal incontinence (FI) and/or constipation.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients who received SNM therapy for FI and/or constipation between 2006 and 2015. Success rates, complications and reintervention rates were assessed after up to 10 years of follow-up.

Results

Electrodes for test stimulation were implanted in 101 patients, of whom 79 (78.2%) received permanent stimulation. The mean follow-up was 4.4 ± 3.0 years. At the end of follow-up, 57 patients (72.2%) were still receiving SNM. The 5-year success rate for FI and isolated constipation was 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.1-97.0%) and 31.2% (95% CI, 10.2-95.5%), respectively (P ＜ 0.001). In patients with FI, involuntary evacuations per week decreased ＞ 50% in 76.1% of patients (95% CI, 67.6-86.2%) after 5 years. A lead position at S3 was associated with an improved outcome (P = 0.04). Battery exchange was necessary in 23 patients (29.1%), with a median battery life of 6.2 years. Reinterventions due to complications were necessary in 24 patients (30.4%). For these patients, the 5-year success rate was 89.0% (95% CI, 75.3-100.0%) compared to 78.4% (95% CI, 67.2-91.4%) for patients without reintervention.

Conclusions

SNM offers an effective sustainable treatment for FI. For constipation, lasting success of SNM is limited and is thus not recommended. Reinterventions are necessary but do not impede treatment success.

Cost-effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous sacral nerve stimulation is recommended by the United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as a second-line treatment for patients with faecal incontinence who failed conservative therapy. Sacral nerve stimulation is an invasive procedure associated with complications and reoperations. This study aimed to investigate whether delivering less invasive and less costly percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation prior to sacral nerve stimulation is cost-effective.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation with subsequent subcutaneous sacral nerve stimulation versus subcutaneous sacral nerve stimulation alone. The model was populated with effectiveness data from systematic reviews and cost data from randomized studies comparing both procedures in a UK National Health Service (NHS) setting.

RESULTS

Offering percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation prior to sacral nerve stimulation (compared with delivering sacral nerve stimulation straight away) was both more effective and less costly in all modeled scenarios. The estimated savings from offering percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation first were £662-£5,697 per patient. The probability of this strategy being cost-effective was around 80% at £20,000-£30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

CONCLUSION

Our analyses suggest that offering patients percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation prior to sacral nerve stimulation can be both cost-effective and cost-saving in the treatment of faecal incontinence.

Randomized clinical trial of sacral versus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in patients with faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a well established therapy for faecal incontinence (FI). Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is a newer, less invasive, treatment. The effectiveness and acceptability of these treatments have not been compared systematically.

METHODS

An investigator-blinded randomized pilot trial of PTNS versus SNS with a parallel qualitative study was performed. Quantitative clinical outcomes and qualitative data from patient interviews were collected for both interventions.

RESULTS

Forty patients (39 women; mean age 59 years) met the eligibility criteria; 23 were randomized to receive SNS and 17 to PTNS. Fifteen patients progressed to permanent SNS implantation and 16 received a full course of PTNS. Within-group effect sizes were marginally greater for SNS than for PTNS on available-case analysis. Mean(s.d.) FI episodes per week at baseline, and 3 and 6 months of follow-up were: 11·4(12·0), 4·0(4·0) and 4·9(6·9) respectively for SNS compared with 10·6(11·2), 5·8(6·9) and 6·3(6·9) for PTNS. Mean(s.d.) Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score values at baseline, and 3 and 6 months were: 16·2(3·0), 11·1(5·2) and 10·4(5·6) for SNS versus 15·1(2·7), 11·7(4·4) and 12·1(5·2) for PTNS. Improvement of at least 50 per cent in FI episodes per week at 6 months was seen in 11 of 18 patients in the SNS group compared with seven of 15 in the PTNS group. Effect estimates for SNS with chronic implanted stimulation were larger (10 of 15 patients at 6 months). Disease-specific and generic quality-of-life improvements complemented clinical outcome data. Qualitative analysis of interview data suggested that both treatments had high acceptability amongst patients.

CONCLUSION

In the short term, both SNS and PTNS provide some clinical benefit to patients with FI. Registration numbers: 2010-018728-15 and 10479 (http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=10479).

New developments in colorectal surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Surgical management of diseases of the colon and rectum continues to evolve. This review examines the recent publications that have led to or may lead to changes in practice in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified and reviewed the recent publications in the areas of colon, rectal, and anal cancers; inflammatory bowel disease; incontinence; diverticulitis; hemorrhoids; fistulas; and quality improvement initiatives.

SUMMARY

New technologies and novel questions have changed practice and will improve patient outcomes. Multiinstitutional studies, ideally randomized, continue to be essential to answer the questions that will lead to identification of best practices.

A pilot study of chronic pudendal nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence for those who have failed sacral nerve stimulation

BACKGROUND

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is used as a first-line treatment for faecal incontinence when conservative measures have failed. However, one-third of patients fail to benefit from this treatment. We hypothesised that sacral afferent stimulation can be maximised using pudendal nerve stimulation (PNS) and this may be of benefit in this patient group. The aim of this study was to assess chronic PNS for those who failed to improve with SNS.

METHODS

Ten patients who had failed SNS were recruited. All underwent percutaneous insertion of a stimulation lead with four-electrode array adjacent to the pudendal nerve. Continuous bipolar stimulation was administered using an external pulse generator over a 3-week period. Those who experienced a ≥50% reduction in the frequency of incontinent episodes over this period proceeded to chronic stimulation with an implantable pulse generator.

RESULTS

Five patients experienced a ≥50% reduction of incontinent episodes during test stimulation and proceeded to chronic stimulation. In these five patients, at a median (range) follow-up of 24 (6-36) months, the median (inter quartile range) frequency of incontinent episodes reduced from 5 (18.25) to 2.5 (3) per week (p = 0.043). Three patients maintained a ≥50% improvement in soiling. There was an improvement in the St Mark's continence Score from 19 (15-24) to 16 (13-19), p = 0.042. There were no significant changes in ability to defer defecation or in quality of life scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Pudendal nerve stimulation failed to improve the symptoms in the majority of patient who had failed SNS. Only a third experienced any improvement.

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.

Surgical therapies for fecal incontinence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Fecal incontinence is a significant source of morbidity and decreased quality of life (QOL) for many. Until recent years, few therapies beyond medical management were available for patients. Surgical treatment of fecal incontinence has evolved from colostomy and direct repair of muscle defects to interventional techniques such as nerve stimulation and bulking agents. We review the most recent surgical options for the treatment of fecal incontinence within the context of established therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overlapping sphincteroplasty is an established therapy that improves continence and QOL, although results deteriorate over time. Implanted artificial bowel sphincter has a 100% complication rate and 80% are explanted over time. Sacral nerve stimulation has minimal risk and more durable long-term improvement in continence. Less invasive versions of nerve stimulation are being researched. Injectable biomaterials have shown some promise, although durability of results is not clear. Novel therapies, including muscle cell transfer and pelvic slings are currently being investigated.

SUMMARY

Surgical therapies for fecal incontinence continue to evolve and show promise in improving QOL with a lower risk profile. Effective valuation of these therapies is currently limited by heterogeneous studies, short duration of follow up, and inconsistent outcome measures.