Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 26–34 | Cite as

Sacral Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Pelvic Floor Disorders

Stress Incontinence and Prolapse (R Dmochowski, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Stress Incontinence and Prolapse


Purpose of Review

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is an FDA-approved treatment option for several refractory pelvic floor disorders given its efficacy and safety profile. Over the past several years, numerous papers have been published on SNM’s long-term outcomes, emerging new indications, comparisons with other treatment options, and cost effectiveness. Therefore, we aim to review these updates to the SNM literature.

Recent Findings

A PUBMED® and MEDLINE® search was performed for scientific publications on “sacral neuromodulation” and “sacral nerve stimulation” between 2011 and 2016. Recent evidence has shown that improved objective and subjective outcomes following placement of SNM are sustained over 3–5 years in the treatment of overactive bladder symptoms and fecal incontinence with minimal adverse events. SNM has also had promising results when used in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain, interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome, constipation, and neurogenic bladder although larger, prospective trials with long-term evaluation are needed to truly establish SNM as an effective intervention for these expanding indications.


SNM is a well-tolerated intervention for refractory bladder and bowel dysfunction with recent long-term longitudinal studies confirming its efficacy and safety. As we gain further insight into SNM’s mechanism of action and broader therapeutic indications, we anticipate SNM will become even more widely utilized in the treatment of complex pelvic floor disorders.


Sacral neuromodulation Interstim Overactive bladder Pelvic floor disorders Insite trial 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Karen L. Noblett is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr. Sonia Dutta declares no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Noblett KL, Cadish LA. Sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of refractory voiding and bowel dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(2):99–106. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gormley EA, Lightner DJ, Faraday M, Vasavada SP, American Urological Association, Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine. Diagnosis and treatment of overactive bladder (non-neurogenic) in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline amendment. J Urol. 2015;193(5):1572–80. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.087.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Siegel S, Noblett K, Mangel J, Griebling TL, Sutherland SE, Bird ET, et al. Results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter study evaluating sacral neuromodulation with InterStim therapy compared to standard medical therapy at 6-months in subjects with mild symptoms of overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(3):224–30. doi: 10.1002/nau.22544. The InSite trial is an important landmark trial conducted in two phases. This part of the trial was a randomized trial of SNM vs anticholinergic medication within a 6-month time frame. The results demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the SNM group in both subjective and objective parameters when compared with the medical therapy group. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    •• Siegel S, Noblett K, Mangel J, Griebling TL, Sutherland SE, Bird ET, et al. Three-year follow-up results of a prospective, multicenter study in overactive bladder subjects treated with sacral neuromodulation. Urology. 2016;94:57–63. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.04.024. The second phase of the InSite trial is a 5-year longitudinal cohort study designed to report on the safety and efficacy of the quadripolar tined lead. These results demonstrate sustained improvement in subjective and objective parameters 36 months after placement of the permanent implantable pulse generator. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gross C, Habli M, Lindsell C, South M. Sacral neuromodulation for nonobstructive urinary retention: a meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16(4):249–53. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181df9b3f.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peeters K, Sahai A, De Ridder D, Van Der Aa F. Long-term follow-up of sacral neuromodulation for lower urinary tract dysfunction. BJU Int. 2014;113(5):789–94. doi: 10.1111/bju.12571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown HW, Wexner SD, Segall MM, Brezoczky KL, Lukacz ES. Accidental bowel leakage in the mature women’s health study: prevalence and predictors. Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(11):1101–8. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.12018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tjandra JJ, Chan MK, Yeh CH, Murray-Green C. Sacral nerve stimulation is more effective than optimal medical therapy for severe fecal incontinence: a randomized, controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(5):494–502. doi: 10.1007/s10350-007-9103-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.•
    Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, Mellgren A, Devroede G, Madoff RD, et al. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(2):234–45. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e318276b24c. The results of this 5-year longitudinal cohort study report on the sustained improvement in subjective and objective parameters when treating fecal incontinence with SNM. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McNevin MS, Moore M, Bax T. Outcomes associated with Interstim therapy for medically refractory fecal incontinence. Am J Surg. 2014;207(5):735–7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.01.003. discussion 737–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marcelissen T, Jacobs R, van Kerrebroeck P, de Wachter S. Sacral neuromodulation as a treatment for chronic pelvic pain. J Urol. 2011;186(2):387–93. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martellucci J, Naldini G, Carriero A. Sacral nerve modulation in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain. Int J Color Dis. 2012;27(7):921–6. doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1394-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peters KM, Carrico DJ, Kalinowski SE, Ibrahim IA, Diokno AC. Prevalence of pelvic floor dysfunction in patients with interstitial cystitis. Urology. 2007;70(1):16–8. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.02.067.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gupta P, Ehlert MJ, Sirls LT, Peters KM. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and sacral neuromodulation: an update. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(2):4. doi: 10.1007/s11934-014-0479-1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghazwani YQ, Elkelini MS, Hassouna MM. Efficacy of sacral neuromodulation in treatment of bladder pain syndrome: long-term follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(7):1271–5. doi: 10.1002/nau.21037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharma A, Bussen D, Herold A, Jayne D. Review of sacral neuromodulation for management of constipation. Surg Innov. 2013;20(6):614–24. doi: 10.1177/1553350613475882.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kamm MA, Dudding TC, Melenhorst J, Jarrett M, Wang Z, Buntzen S, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for intractable constipation. Gut. 2010;59(3):333–40. doi: 10.1136/gut.2009.187989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wallace PA, Lane FL, Noblett KL. Sacral nerve neuromodulation in patients with underlying neurologic disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(1):96.e1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.04.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kessler TM, La Framboise D, Trelle S, Fowler CJ, Kiss G, Pannek J, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2010;58(6):865–74. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.024.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chaabane W, Guillotreau J, Castel-Lacanal E, Abu-Anz S, De Boissezon X, Malavaud B, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for treating neurogenic bladder dysfunction: clinical and urodynamic study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(4):547–50. doi: 10.1002/nau.21009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peters KM, Kandagatla P, Killinger KA, Wolfert C, Boura JA. Clinical outcomes of sacral neuromodulation in patients with neurologic conditions. Urology. 2013;81(4):738–43. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.11.073.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andretta E, Simeone C, Ostardo E, Pastorello M, Zuliani C. Usefulness of sacral nerve modulation in a series of multiple sclerosis patients with bladder dysfunction. J Neurol Sci. 2014;347(1–2):257–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.10.010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Noblett K, Benson K, Kreder K. Detailed analysis of adverse events and surgical interventions in a large prospective trial of sacral neuromodulation therapy for overactive bladder patients. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;1–7. doi:  10.1002/nau.23076. The second phase of the landmark InSite trial was designed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of the quadripolar tined lead. These results demonstrate that the complication and adverse event rate observed in the InSite trial are much less than those reported in the earlier MDT-103 trial.
  24. 24.
    Clark MH, Fuller E, Benson JT. Human sacral neuroanatomy: electrophysiologic determination, poster 35. 21st Annual American Urogynecology Society Meeting 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    •• Jacobs SA, Lane FL, Osann KE, Noblett KL. Randomized prospective crossover study of interstim lead wire placement with curved versus straight stylet. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(5):488–92. doi: 10.1002/nau.22437. In this randomized crossover trial comparing the curved to the straight stylet, the authors demonstrate the use of the curved stylet to be superior with significant reduction in amplitude requirements compared with the straight stylet. The small change in the surgical technique can have profound changes in the ability for implanters to achieve a positive response on all four electrodes at lower amplitudes. This will improve the longevity of the IPG and decrease the number of surgeries for IPG exchanges. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wolf Jr JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, Hollenbeck BK, Pearle MS, Schaeffer AJ, et al. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1379–90. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.068.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    • Brueseke T, Livingston B, Warda H, Osann K, Noblett K. Risk factors for surgical site infection in patients undergoing sacral nerve modulation therapy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(4):198–204. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000183. This retrospective study demonstrates a significant reduction in surgical site infections associated with SNM by implementing a chlorhexidine scrub the day before surgery. Interestingly, the majority of infections that occurred after this process were due to MRSA. These findings may influence practice and antibiotic choice for coverage. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    T Hoen LA, Groen J, Scheepe JR, Blok BF. Intermittent sacral neuromodulation for idiopathic urgency urinary incontinence in women. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015. doi: 10.1002/nau.22938.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Price DM, Noblett K. Prospective randomized crossover trial comparing continuous and cyclic stimulation in InterStim therapy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(6):355–8. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peters KM, Shen L, McGuire M. Effect of sacral neuromodulation rate on overactive bladder symptoms: a randomized crossover feasibility study. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2013;5(3):129–33. doi: 10.1111/luts.12000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cadish LA, Osann KE, Noblett KL. Stimulation latency and comparison of cycling regimens in women using sacral neuromodulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016. doi: 10.1002/nau.22962.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Amundsen CL, Richter HE, Menefee SA, Komesu YM, Arya LA, Gregory WT, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA vs sacral neuromodulation on refractory urgency urinary incontinence in women: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016 Oct 4;316(13):1366–1374.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martinson M, MacDiarmid S, Black E. Cost of neuromodulation therapies for overactive bladder: percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sacral nerve stimulation. J Urol. 2013;189(1):210–6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.085.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Siddiqui NY, Amundsen CL, Visco AG, Myers ER, Wu JM. Cost-effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation versus intravesical botulinum A toxin for treatment of refractory urge incontinence. J Urol. 2009;182(6):2799–804. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.08.031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Leong RK, de Wachter SG, Joore MA, van Kerrebroeck PE. Cost-effectiveness analysis of sacral neuromodulation and botulinum toxin A treatment for patients with idiopathic overactive bladder. BJU Int. 2011;108(4):558–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09905.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bertapelle MP, Vottero M, Popolo GD, Mencarini M, Ostardo E, Spinelli M, et al. Sacral neuromodulation and botulinum toxin A for refractory idiopathic overactive bladder: a cost-utility analysis in the perspective of Italian healthcare system. World J Urol. 2015;33(8):1109–17. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1401-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Noblett KL, Dmochowski RR, Vasavada SP, Garner AM, Liu S, Pietzsch JB. Cost profiles and budget impact of rechargeable versus non-rechargeable sacral neuromodulation devices in the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;1–7. doi: 10.1002/nau.23008.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine Education BuildingUniversity of California RiversideRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Department of OB/GYN, division of UrogynecologyUniversity of California, IrvineOrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations