Published in:
01-07-2004 | Original Contribution
Sacral Nerve Stimulation in Fecal Incontinence
Authors:
Ole O. Rasmussen, M.D., Ph.D., Steen Buntzen, M.D., Ph.D., Michael Sørensen, M.D., Søren Laurberg, M.D., Ph.D., John Christiansen, M.D., Ph.D.
Published in:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
|
Issue 7/2004
Login to get access
PURPOSE:
The effect of sacral nerve stimulation was studied in 45 patients with fecal incontinence.
METHODS:
All patients were initially tested in general anesthesia. Sacral nerves 2, 3, and 4 were tested on both sides. If a perineal/perianal muscular response to sacral nerve stimulation could be obtained, electrodes were implanted for a three-week test-stimulation period. If sacral nerve stimulation resulted in at least a 50 percent reduction in incontinence episodes during the test period, a system for permanent sacral nerve stimulation was implanted.
RESULTS:
When tested in general anesthesia, 43 of 45 patients had a muscular response to sacral nerve stimulation and had electrodes implanted for the three-week test period. Percutaneous electrodes were used in 34 patients, and 23 of these had at least a 50 percent reduction in incontinence episodes, whereas the electrodes dislocated in 7 patients and 4 had a poor response. Permanent electrodes with percutaneous extension electrodes were used primarily in 9 patients and after dislocation of percutaneous electrodes in an additional 6 patients; 14 of these had a good result. In the last patient, no clinical response to stimulation with the permanent electrode could be obtained. A permanent stimulation system was implanted in 37 patients. After a median of six (range, 0–36) months follow-up, five patients had the system explanted: three because the clinical response faded out, and two because of infection. Incontinence score (Wexner, 0–20) for the 37 patients with a permanent system for sacral nerve stimulation was reduced from median 16 (range, 9–20) before sacral nerve stimulation to median 6 (range, 0–20) at latest follow-up (P < 0.0001). There was no differences in effect of sacral nerve stimulation in patients with idiopathic incontinence (n = 19) compared with spinal etiology (n = 8) or obstetric cause of incontinence (n = 5). Sacral nerve stimulation did not influence anal pressures or rectal volume tolerability.
CONCLUSIONS:
Sacral nerve stimulation in fecal incontinence shows promising results. Patients with idiopathic, spinal etiology, or persisting incontinence after sphincter repair may benefit from this minimally invasive treatment.