Advertisement

Sacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence in Latin America: initial results of a multicenter study

  • L. OliveiraEmail author
  • G. Hagerman
  • M. L. Torres
  • C. M. Lumi
  • J. A. C. Siachoque
  • J. C. Reyes
  • J. Perez-Aguirre
  • J. C. Sanchez-Robles
  • V. H. Guerrero-Guerrero
  • S. M. Regadas
  • V. G. Filho
  • G. Rosato
  • E. Vieira
  • L. Marzan
  • D. Lima
  • E. Londoño-Schimmer
  • S. D. Wexner
Original Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is a widely used therapeutic option for fecal incontinence (FI). Larger series are mainly from Western countries, while few reports address the results of SNM in less developed or less wealthy countries. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of SNM in patients with FI in Latin America.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on patients with FI who had SNM between 2009 and 2016 at 15 specialized colorectal surgery centers in Latin America. Main outcomes measures were functional outcomes, postoperative complications, requirement of revisional surgery, and requirement of device removal. All patients had failed conservative management and had clinical assessment including recording of the validated Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (CCF-FIS) and, when available, anal manometry and endoanal ultrasound. Patients were followed up for a median of 36.7 (1–84) months.

Results

One hundred and thirty-one patients [119 females, median age of 62.2 (range 19–87) years] were included. The most common etiology of FI was obstetric injury (n = 60; 45.8%). After successful test lead implantation, the stimulator was permanently placed in 129 patients (98.5%). One patient failed to respond in the test phase and one patient did not proceed to permanent implantation for insurance reasons. Nineteen patients (14.7%) had 19 complications including infection (n = 5, 3.8%), persistent implant site pain (n = 5, 3.8%), generator/lead dislodgment (n = 5, 3.8%), malfunctioning device (n = 3, 2.3%), and hematoma (n = 1, 0.7%). Reimplantation after the first and second stages was necessary in 2 (1.5%) and 3 patients (2.3%), respectively. The device removal rate was 2.2%. At a median follow-up of 36.7 (range 1–84) months, the CCF-FIS significantly improved from a preoperative baseline of 15.9 ± 2.98 to 5.2 ± 3.92 (95%CI: 15.46 vs 4.43; p < 0.0001). Overall, 90% of patients rated their improvement as “significant”.

Conclusions

Sacral nerve stimulation for FI is safe and efficient, even in less wealthy or less developed countries.

Keywords

Fecal incontinence Sacral neuromodulation Complications Lead explantation Device explanation Migration, Infection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the following surgeons for including patients in the database: Omar Vergara-Fernadez, MD, Hospital Medica Sur, Mexico City, Mexico; Quintin H. González-Contreras, MD, Hospital Ángeles del Pedregal, Mexico City, Mexico; Rafael Sánchez Morett, MD, Hospital Angeles Santa Mónica, Mexico City, Mexico, Juan Pablo Muñoz, MD, Department of Surgery, Hospital de Gastroenterologia, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Rubén Miravalle,MD, Buenos Aires,Argentina. We also wish to thank Elektra McDermott for her assistance in the editing and preparation of this manuscript.

Author contributions

All authors: Final approval of the version to be published; Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Wexner: Paid consultant for Medtronic. Oliveira, Hagerman, Torres, Lumi, Marzan: Paid consultant for Medtronic. Carrera Siachoque, Reyes, Perez-Aguirre, Sanchez-Robles, Guerrero, Regadas, Gaburgio Filho, Rosato, Vieira, Lima, Londoño-Schimmer: None.

Human and animal rights

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Ethics approval

This study was exempt from Ethics approval from the participating institutions.

Informed consent

All patients gave signed informed consents prior to their surgery.

References

  1. 1.
    Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI (1993) Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 329:1905–1911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Damon H, Henry L, Bretones S et al (2000) Postdelivery anal function in primiparous females: ultrasound and manometric study. Dis Colon Rectum 43:472–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Karoui S, Savoye-Collet C, Koning E et al (1999) Prevalence of anal sphincter defects revealed by sonography in 335 incontinent patients and 115 continent patients. Am J Roentgenol 1173:389–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dudding TC, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA (2008) Obstetric anal sphincter injury: incidence, risk factors, and management. Ann Surg 247(2):224–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ng KS, Sivakumaran Y, Nassar N, Gladman MA (2015) Fecal Incontinence: community Prevalence and Associated Factors-A Systematic Review. Dis Colon Rectum 58(12):1194–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bharucha AE, Zinsmeister AR, Locke GR et al (2006) Symptoms and quality of life in community women with fecal incontinence. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4:1004–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johanson JF, Lafferty J (1996) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol 91:33–36Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saldana Ruiz N, Kaiser AM (2017) Fecal incontinence—challenges and solutions. World J Gastroenterol 23(1):11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Koughnett JM, Wexner SD (2013) Current management of fecal incontinence: choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 19(48):9216–9230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wexner SD (2015) Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in faecal incontinence. Lancet 386(10004):1605–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oliveira L, Pfeifer J, Wexner SD (1996) Physiological and clinical outcome of anterior sphincteroplasty. Br J Surg 83:1244–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rongen MJ, Uludag O, El Naggar K et al (2003) Long-term follow-up of dynamic graciloplasty for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 46:716–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Madoff RD, Baeten CG, Christiansen J et al (2000) Standards for anal sphincter replacement. Dis Colon Rectum 43:135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jorge JMN, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36(1):77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matzel KE, Stadelmaier U, Hohenberger W (2004) Innovations in fecal incontinence: sacral nerve stimulation. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1720–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyle DJ, Knowles CH, Lunniss PJ et al (2009) Efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence in patients with anal sphincter defects. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1234–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Altomare DF, Giuratrabocchetta S, Knowles CH et al (2015) Long-term outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 102:407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD et al (2013) Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 56:234–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mellgren A, Wexner SD, Coller JA, SNS Study Group et al (2011) Long-term efficacy and safety of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1065–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dudding TC, Meng Lee E, Faiz O et al (2008) Economic evaluation of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 95:1155–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Oliveira
    • 1
    • 17
    Email author
  • G. Hagerman
    • 2
  • M. L. Torres
    • 3
  • C. M. Lumi
    • 4
  • J. A. C. Siachoque
    • 5
  • J. C. Reyes
    • 6
  • J. Perez-Aguirre
    • 7
  • J. C. Sanchez-Robles
    • 8
  • V. H. Guerrero-Guerrero
    • 8
  • S. M. Regadas
    • 9
  • V. G. Filho
    • 10
  • G. Rosato
    • 11
  • E. Vieira
    • 12
  • L. Marzan
    • 13
  • D. Lima
    • 14
  • E. Londoño-Schimmer
    • 15
  • S. D. Wexner
    • 16
  1. 1.Department of Anorectal Physiology of Rio de JaneiroCEPEMEDRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Colorectal SurgeryCentro Medico ABC Universidad PanamericanaMexico CityMexico
  3. 3.Colorectal Clinic of Puerto RicoSan JuanUSA
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryHospital de GastroenterologiaBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryFundacion Santa Fe de BogotaBogotáColombia
  6. 6.Coloproctology Unit, Department of SurgeryClinical del CountryBogotáColombia
  7. 7.Hospital Militar de Ciudad de MexicoMexico CityMexico
  8. 8.Hospital Central Militar Universidad del Ejercito y FuerzaCuauhtémocMexico
  9. 9.Universidade Federal do CearáFortalezaBrazil
  10. 10.Hospital Santa Rita de MaringaMaringáBrazil
  11. 11.Colorectal SurgeryHospital Universitario AustralBuenos AiresArgentina
  12. 12.Universidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  13. 13.Hospital Federal da LagoaRio de JaneiroBrazil
  14. 14.Anorectal Physiology DepartmentGastroclínica CascavelCascavelBrazil
  15. 15.Universidad de los AndesBogotáColombia
  16. 16.Department of Colorectal SurgeryCleveland Clinic FloridaWestonUSA
  17. 17.Colorectal SurgeryCasa de Saúde São JoséRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations