Evaluation of progression from first to second stage sacral neuromodulation and unplanned device removal

[Therapeutic value of neuromodulation in women]

BACKGROUND

Neuromodulative treatment for the treatment of overactive bladder has been used in clinical practice since its introduction in the early 1980s.

OBJECTIVES

Description and update of the various neuromodulative techniques (tibial nerve stimulation, sacral and pudendal neuromodulation), presentation of their effectiveness and safety, and evaluation of their evidence for clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search in PubMed and Embase, inclusion of studies according to the following criteria: evidence level, timeliness, length of follow-up and number of female patients according to the author's preference.

RESULTS

The efficacy and safety of both percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has been proven by studies with an evidence level of 1. Long-term data of up to 20 years are available for SNM, while long-term data for PTNS are limited. Permanent implants for tibial nerve stimulation are promising new developments. Pudendal neuromodulation (PNM) is suitable for more complex indications but is surgically more challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PTNS and SNM are suitable for broad application in clinical practice. PTNS can be offered as an alternative to pharmacotherapy, while SNM provides the most convincing clinical data of all neuromodulative therapies.

Unsuccessful Progression of Sacral Neuromodulation From the Evaluation to the Implantation Stage: A Single-Center Experience

Introduction

Over the years, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has become an established and effective treatment for chronic urinary system retention and incontinence. The process of SNM is performed in two stages, the first is an evaluation phase and the second an implant phase. This study aimed to assess the rate of failure of progression from the evaluation to the implantation stage and the factors predicting the outcome of this commonplace procedure.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study took place at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All the patients who underwent SNM implantation from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021 were included. Patients younger than 14 years and patients who had the SNM implantation in a different hospital and were only followed-up at KAMC were excluded. Patient-related information were extracted from the BESTCare system. Frequency and percentage were used for the categorical variables, and the mean, median, and standard deviation to display the continuous variables. Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to test for the association of the categorical variables.

Results

Among 28 patients, 46.4% (n=13) failed to progress from the evaluation phase to the implantation phase. Gender, age, having a co-morbidity, and SNM indication were not significant factors for predicting the outcome of the SNM evaluation phase.

Conclusion

The observed failure rate was marginally higher than the ones detected in other studies. Although no significant association was detected between evaluation stage failure and the assigned predictors, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to the small population size. Larger multicenter studies need to be done in order to investigate the link between patient characteristics and the efficacy of SNM. Establishing a concrete evidence would further refine the targeted patient population and indications for SNM.

Reprogramming Sacral Neuromodulation for Sub-Optimal Outcomes: Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice

Objectives

In some patients treated for urinary or fecal incontinence with sacral neuromodulation (SNM) persistence of symptoms, a reduction in efficacy or adverse effects of stimulation can occur. In such situations, further programming of the SNM device can help resolve problems. Infrequently hardware failure is detected. This article aims to provide practical guidance to solve sub‐optimal outcomes (troubleshooting) occurring in the course of SNM therapy.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review was performed. Collective clinical experience from an expert multidisciplinary group was used to form opinion where evidence was lacking.

Results

Circumstances in which reprogramming is required are described. Actions to undertake include changes of electrode configuration, stimulation amplitude, pulse frequency, and pulse width. Guidance in case of loss of efficacy and adverse effects of stimulation, developed by a group of European experts, is presented. In addition, various hardware failure scenarios and their management are described.

Conclusions

Reprogramming aims to further improve patient symptoms or ensure a comfortable delivery of the therapy. Initial changes of electrode configuration and adjustment of stimulation parameters can be performed at home to avoid unnecessary hospital visits. A logical and stepwise approach to reprogramming can improve the outcome of therapy and restore patient satisfaction.