Top

Published in:

01-10-2011

How Does Sacral Modulation Work Best? Placement and Programming Techniques to Maximize Efficacy

Authors: Bastian Amend, Mahmoud Khalil, Thomas M. Kessler, Karl-Dietrich Sievert

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 5/2011

Abstract

Since receiving approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 1997, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has become the recommended treatment of urinary urge incontinence, urgency–frequency, nonobstructive urinary retention, and fecal incontinence. The manufacturer has introduced different technical modifications while surgeons and researchers have adapted and published various innovations and alterations of the technique. This review summarizes the current knowledge and recommendations of SNM preoperative decision making, the implantation technique, and available programming parameters and algorithms based on MEDLINE research, manufacturer instructions, and the approach of an experienced neurourological team. The primary steps and technical aspects to optimize SNM efficacy were the introduction of the tined-lead electrode and the development of the InterStim II impulse generator (both developed by Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN). The initiation of the staged implantation technique for sequential evaluation and implantation with the definitive quadripolar electrode completes the treatment algorithm so that an increased responder rate of SNM for all indications can be achieved.

Schmidt RA, Jonas U, Oleson KA, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence. Sacral Nerve Stimulation Study Group. J Urol. 1999;162:352–7.PubMedCrossRef

• Matzel KE, Lux P, Heuer S et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: long-term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:636–41. Although the authors reported a small group of patients, an outstanding long follow-up of nearly 10 years has been described for the efficacy of SNM for fecal incontinence. PubMedCrossRef

Oerlemans DJ, Van Kerrebroeck PE. Sacral nerve stimulation for neuromodulation of the lower urinary tract. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27:28–33.PubMedCrossRef

•• Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L et al.: 4th International Consultation on Incontinence. Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse and faecal incontinence. 4th edition. 2009. The recommendadtions of the fourth ICI summarize the current state of the art of urinary and fecal incontinence management. The information guides for an successful treatment.

Van Kerrebroeck PE, Van Voskuilen AC, Heesakkers JP, et al. Results of sacral neuromodulation therapy for urinary voiding dysfunction: outcomes of a prospective, worldwide clinical study. J Urol. 2007;178:2029–34.PubMedCrossRef

• Wexner SD, Coller JA, Devroede G et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: results of a 120-patient prospective multicenter study. Ann Surg. (2010), 251:441–449. The authors report on SNM for fecal incontinence with follow-up of 28 months. Safety and efficacy of SNM for fecal incontinence was concluded. PubMedCrossRef

Uludag O, Melenhorst J, Koch SM et al. Sacral neuromodulation: long term outcome and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence. Colorectal disease: the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (2010).

• Haddad M, Besson R, Aubert D et al. Sacral neuromodulation in children with urinary and fecal incontinence: a multicenter, open label, randomized, crossover study. J Urol. 2010;184:696–701. The authors conducted one of the first randomized trials for SNM in a pediatric population. Superiority of SNM over conservative treatment for urinary and fecal incontinence was reported. The authors recommend consideration of SNM before irreversible surgery for children. PubMedCrossRef

Alloussi S, Loew F, Mast GJ. Wolf D [Selective sacral nerve blockade in the treatment of detrusor hyperreflexia of the bladder]. Urologe A. 1984;23:39–45.PubMed

10.

Amundsen CL, Romero AA, Jamison MG. Webster GD Sacral neuromodulation for intractable urge incontinence: are there factors associated with cure? Urology. 2005;66:746–50.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Kessler TM, La Framboise D, Trelle S, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2010;58:865–74.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Amend B, Castro-Diaz D, Chartier-Kastler E, et al. Second-line therapy of idiopathic detrusor overactivity. Sacral neuromodulation and botulinum toxin A. Urologe A. 2010;49:245–52.PubMedCrossRef

13.

•• Thuroff JW, Abrams P, Andersson KE et al. EAU Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol. 2011;59:387–400. The European Association of Urology offers well-structured and clinically oriented guidelines for the treatment of urinary incontinence. These guidelines should be introduced into daily patient care PubMedCrossRef

14.

Maeda Y, Laurberg S. Sacral nerve stimulation: time for critical appraisal. Ann Surg (2011).

15.

• Spinelli M, Sievert KD. Latest technologic and surgical developments in using InterStim Therapy for sacral neuromodulation: impact on treatment success and safety. Eur Urol. 2008;54:1287–96. This article accompanies a "surgery in motion" video that demonstrates the basics of SNM with stepwise surgical instruction. Additionally, recent changes and further development of the PNE and the tined-lead procedures are summarized. PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hetzer FH, Hahnloser D, Knoblauch Y, et al. New screening technique for sacral nerve stimulation under local anaesthesia. Tech Coloproctol. 2005;9:25–8.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Cohen BL, Tunuguntla HS, Gousse A. Predictors of success for first stage neuromodulation: motor versus sensory response. J Urol. 2006;175:2178–80. discussion 2180–1.PubMedCrossRef

18.

• Govaert B, Melenhorst J, Van Gemert WG, Baeten CG. Can sensory and/or motor reactions during percutaneous nerve evaluation predict outcome of sacral nerve modulation? Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1423–6. The authors investigated motor or sensory responses to SNM with equal responses to SNM. They concluded that patients with only sensory response naturally benefit from a procedure performed under local anesthesia. PubMedCrossRef

19.

Janknegt RA, Weil EH, Eerdmans PH. Improving neuromodulation technique for refractory voiding dysfunctions: two-stage implant. Urology. 1997;49:358–62.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Spinelli M, Malaguti S, Giardiello G, et al. A new minimally invasive procedure for pudendal nerve stimulation to treat neurogenic bladder: description of the method and preliminary data. Neurourol Urodyn. 2005;24:305–9.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Everaert K, Kerckhaert W, Caluwaerts H, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing the 1-stage with the 2-stage implantation of a pulse generator in patients with pelvic floor dysfunction selected for sacral nerve stimulation. Eur Urol. 2004;45:649–54.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Peters KM, Carey JM, Konstandt DB. Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of refractory interstitial cystitis: outcomes based on technique. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14:223–8. discussion 228.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Scheepens WA, Van Koeveringe GA, De Bie RA, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety results of the two-stage implantation technique in sacral neuromodulation. BJU Int. 2002;90:840–5.PubMedCrossRef

24.

• Marcelissen T, Leong R, Serroyen J et al. Is the screening method of sacral neuromodulation a prognostic factor for long-term success? J Urol. 2011;185:583–7. The authors investigated the different screening methods of SNM in regard to the responder rate and efficacy. They reported the staged procedure to be more sensitive than PNE, but long-term success seems to be equal if patients without a positive PNE test were offered evaluation with the tined-lead electrode. PubMedCrossRef

25.

Hauck EF, Schwefer M, Wittkowski W, Bothe HW. Measurements and mapping of 282,420 nerve fibers in the S1-5 nerve roots. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:255–63.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Leong RK, De Wachter SG, Nieman FH et al. PNE versus 1st stage tined lead procedure: A direct comparison to select the most sensitive test method to identify patients suitable for sacral neuromodulation therapy. Neurourology and urodynamics 2011.

27.

Benninghoff D. Anatomy. München: Urban & Fischer Verlag; 2003.

28.

Amend B, Matzel KE, Abrams P et al. How does neuromodulation work: ICI-RS 2010? Neurourology and urodynamics 2011.

29.

Swinn MJ, Schott GD, Oliver SE, et al. Leg pain after sacral neuromodulation: anatomical considerations. BJU Int. 1999;84:1113–5.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Medtronic: Manuals and Technical Resources. Available at http://professional.medtronic.com/products/interstim-II-sacral-nerve-neurostimulator/manuals-and-technical-resources/index.htm

31.

Mcgee SM, Routh JC, Granberg CF, et al. Sacral neuromodulation in children with dysfunctional elimination syndrome: description of incisionless first stage and second stage without fluoroscopy. Urology. 2009;73:641–4. discussion 644.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Amoroso L, Pelliccioni G, Ghiselli R, et al. Sacral-neuromodulation CT-guided. La Radiologia Medica. 2005;109:421–9.PubMed

33.

Reitz A, Gobeaux N, Mozer P, et al. Topographic anatomy of a new posterior approach to the pudendal nerve for stimulation. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1350–5. discussion 1355–1356.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Sievert KD, Nagele U, Pannek J, et al. Subcutaneous tunneling of the temporary testing electrode significantly improves the success rate of subchronic sacral nerve modulation (SNM). World J Urol. 2007;25:607–12.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Ratto C, Morelli U, Paparo S, et al. Minimally invasive sacral neuromodulation implant technique: modifications to the conventional procedure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:414–7.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Hohenfellner M, Schultz-Lampel D, Dahms S, et al. Bilateral chronic sacral neuromodulation for treatment of lower urinary tract dysfunction. J Urol. 1998;160:821–4.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Braun PM, Boschert J, Bross S, et al. Tailored laminectomy: a new technique for neuromodulator implantation. J Urol. 1999;162:1607–9.PubMedCrossRef

38.

• Al-Zahrani AA, Elzayat EA, Gajewski JB Long-term outcome and surgical interventions after sacral neuromodulation implant for lower urinary tract symptoms: 14-year experience at 1 center. J Urol. 2011;185:981–6. The efficacy of SNM for different indications is reported for patients treated between 1994 and 2008 with a mean follow-up of 50 months. The authors summarized a good long-term outcome and a reduced reoperation rate due to techical and surgical advances. PubMedCrossRef

39.

Marcelissen TA, Leong RK, De Bie RA, et al. Long-term results of sacral neuromodulation with the tined lead procedure. J Urol. 2010;184:1997–2000.PubMedCrossRef

40.

• Kessler TM, Fowler CJ. Sacral neuromodulation for urinary retention. Nature clinical practice. Urology 2008;5:657–66. The authors gave an important and interesting review about the use of SNM for nonobstructive urinary retention. Also, aspects of troubleshooting have been dicussed in this article. PubMed

41.

Scheepens WA, Weil EH, Van Koeveringe GA, et al. Buttock placement of the implantable pulse generator: a new implantation technique for sacral neuromodulation–a multicenter study. Eur Urol. 2001;40:434–8.PubMedCrossRef

42.

•• Sievert KD, Amend B, Gakis G et al. Early sacral neuromodulation prevents urinary incontinence after complete spinal cord injury. Ann Neurol. 2010;67:74–84. The authors investigated the use of SNM in patients with acute spinal cord injury. The development of detrusor overactivity could be prevented by early implantation of bilateral electrodes. Further studies are needed to demonstrate continuing efficacy in this new field of SNM. PubMedCrossRef

43.

Maher MG, Mourtzinos A, Zabihi N, et al. Bilateral caudal epidural neuromodulation for refractory urinary retention: a salvage procedure. J Urol. 2007;177:2237–40. discussion 2241.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Kaufmann S, Naumann CM, Hamann MF, et al. Unilateral vs bilateral sacral neuromodulation in pigs with formalin-induced detrusor hyperactivity. BJU Int. 2009;103:260–3.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Scheepens WA, De Bie RA, Weil EH, Van Kerrebroeck PE. Unilateral versus bilateral sacral neuromodulation in patients with chronic voiding dysfunction. J Urol. 2002;168:2046–50.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Marcelissen TA, Leong RK, Serroyen J, et al. The use of bilateral sacral nerve stimulation in patients with loss of unilateral treatment efficacy. J Urol. 2011;185:976–80.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Pannek J, Grigoleit U, Hinkel A. Bacterial contamination of test stimulation leads during percutaneous nerve stimulation. Urology. 2005;65:1096–8.PubMedCrossRef

48.

• Huwyler M, Kiss G, Burkhard FC et al. Microbiological tined-lead examination: does prolonged sacral neuromodulation testing induce infection? BJU Int. 2009;104:646–50; discussion 650. The recommended maximum duration of SNM stimulation ,either by PNE or tined-lead, implantation is still under discussion. The authors investigated prolonged testing and reported equal infection rates compared to "short-term" evaluation. PubMedCrossRef

49.

Kessler TM, Burkhard FC, Madersbacher H, et al. Safety of prolonged sacral neuromodulation tined lead testing. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:343–7.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Kessler TM, Madersbacher H. Kiss G Prolonged sacral neuromodulation testing using permanent leads: a more reliable patient selection method? Eur Urol. 2005;47:660–5.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Sievert KD, Gleason CA, Junemann KP, et al. Physiologic bladder evacuation with selective sacral root stimulation: sinusoidal signal and organ-specific frequency. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:80–91.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Fowler CJ, Swinn MJ, Goodwin RJ, et al. Studies of the latency of pelvic floor contraction during peripheral nerve evaluation show that the muscle response is reflexly mediated. J Urol. 2000;163:881–3.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Hijaz A, Vasavada SP, Daneshgari F, et al. Complications and troubleshooting of two-stage sacral neuromodulation therapy: a single-institution experience. Urology. 2006;68:533–7.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Mahfooz AB, Elmayergi N, Abdelhady M, et al. Parameters of successful sacral root neuromodulation of the pelvic floor: a retrospective study. Can J Urol. 2004;11:2303–8.PubMed

55.

Seif C, Herzog J, Van Der Horst C, et al. Effect of subthalamic deep brain stimulation on the function of the urinary bladder. Ann Neurol. 2004;55:118–20.PubMedCrossRef

56.

•• Fowler CJ, Griffiths DJ. A decade of functional brain imaging applied to bladder control. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:49–55. Less is known about the neurophysiological background of SNM. Functional-imaging techniques facilitate insights into the complex neuronal network. The authors presented an excellent review on the current state and future possibilities of functional-imaging techniques to investigate lower urinary innervations. PubMed

Title: How Does Sacral Modulation Work Best? Placement and Programming Techniques to Maximize Efficacy
Authors: Bastian Amend
Mahmoud Khalil
Thomas M. Kessler
Karl-Dietrich Sievert
Publication date: 01-10-2011
Publisher: Current Science Inc.
Published in: Current Urology Reports / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-011-0204-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

How Does Sacral Modulation Work Best? Placement and Programming Techniques to Maximize Efficacy

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

Stem Cell Therapy for Incontinence: Where Are We Now? What is the Realistic Potential?

Antimuscarinic Drugs: Review of the Cognitive Impact When Used to Treat Overactive Bladder in Elderly Patients

Does Estrogen Have Any Real Effect on Voiding Dysfunction in Women?

Transvaginal Mesh for Prolapse Repair: What is All the Controversy About?

Risk Factors for the Development of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women

Retropubic and Transobturator Slings: Still Useful or Should All Patients Be Treated with Mini-slings?