» Articles » PMID: 15082209

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

Overview
Journal Eur Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2004 Apr 15
PMID 15082209
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate in a prospective, randomized setting if the 2-stage implant, compared to a 1-stage implant, leads to a superior subjective or objective outcome of sacral nerve stimulation after implantation of the pulse generator in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms.

Patients And Methods: We implanted a sacral (S3) foramen lead and a pulse generator (model 3023, Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN, USA) in 42 patients. They were randomized in a 1-stage or a 2-stage implant if a more than 50% improvement in voided volume or reduction of residual urine was seen during the test stimulation phase as compared to baseline.

Results: At 24 months follow-up, subjective (visual analogue scale) and objective (voided volume or residual urine) assessment were significantly better in the 2-stage group. Ten patients (24%) failed therapy, 7 in the 1-stage implant and 3 in the 2-stage group. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Logistic regression analysis revealed that failure was positively related to the 1-stage implant and negatively to the age of the patients. 76% of the treated patients had sustained clinical benefit with 23 revisions performed. The mean cost is respectively for the PNE (2006 Euro), for the 2-stage implant (10826 Euro) and for the 1 stage implant (8505 Euro).

Conclusion: With this study, we demonstrated that the 2-stage implantation technique of the sacral neuromodulation therapy performed as a longer test stimulation phase has a higher success rate.

Citing Articles

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Intractable Visceral Pain Originating from the Pelvic and Abdominal Region: A Narrative Review on a Possible New Indication for Patients with Therapy-Resistant Pain.

Bieze M, van Haaps A, Kapural L, Li S, Ferguson K, de Vries R J Pain Res. 2024; 17:691-736.

PMID: 38405684 PMC: 10887953. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S445616.


[Application and progress of neuromodulation in lower urinary tract dysfunction].

Wang Y, Chen G, Ying X, Liao L Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi. 2020; 37(2):211-218.

PMID: 32329271 PMC: 9927613. DOI: 10.7507/1001-5515.201911078.


Recent advances in managing fecal incontinence.

da Silva G, Sirany A F1000Res. 2019; 8.

PMID: 31448087 PMC: 6676508. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.15270.2.


[Sacral neuromodulation for refractory overactive bladder].

van Ophoven A Urologe A. 2018; 57(11):1375-1388.

PMID: 30310935 DOI: 10.1007/s00120-018-0777-1.


Electrical neuromodulation in the management of lower urinary tract dysfunction: evidence, experience and future prospects.

Abello A, Das A Ther Adv Urol. 2018; 10(5):165-173.

PMID: 29623108 PMC: 5881994. DOI: 10.1177/1756287218756082.