Premium
Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence following proctectomy
Author(s) -
Mizrahi I.,
Chadi S. A.,
Haim N.,
Sands D. R.,
Gurland B.,
Zutshi M.,
Wexner S. D.,
Silva G.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
colorectal disease
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.029
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1463-1318
pISSN - 1462-8910
DOI - 10.1111/codi.13570
Subject(s) - medicine , coloanal anastomosis , surgery , colorectal cancer , anastomosis , sacral nerve stimulation , randomized controlled trial , cancer
Aim This study assessed the effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation ( SNM ) for faecal incontinence ( FI ) following proctectomy with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. Methods An Institutional Review Board ( IRB )‐approved database identified patients treated for FI following proctectomy ( SNM ‐P) for benign or malignant disease, who were matched 1:1 according to preoperative Cleveland Clinic Florida Faecal Incontinence Scores ( CCF ‐ FIS ) with patients without proctectomy ( SNM ‐ NP ). Primary outcome was change in CCF ‐ FIS . Results Twelve patients (seven women) were in the SNM ‐P group and 12 (all women) were in the SNM ‐ NP group. In the SNM ‐P group, six patients underwent proctectomy for low rectal cancer and five received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Five patients had handsewn anastomosis, and one had stapled coloanal anastomosis. One lead explantation occurred after a failed 2‐week SNM percutaneous trial. Six patients underwent proctectomy for benign conditions. Within‐group analyses revealed significant improvement in CCF ‐ FIS in the SNM ‐P group (reduction from a score of 18 to a score of 14; P = 0.02), which was more profound for benign disease (reduction from 14.5 to 8.5) than for rectal cancer (reduction from 19.5 to 15). SNM was explanted in 66% and 33% of patients after proctectomy for malignant and benign conditions, respectively. In the SNM ‐ NP group, 41% underwent overlapping sphincteroplasty. One patient received chemoradiation for anal cancer. Within‐group analysis for the SNM ‐ NP group showed significant improvement in CCF ‐ FIS (a reduction from 17.5 to 4.0; P = 0.003). There was significant improvement in CCF ‐ FIS in patients without previous proctectomy (mean delta CCF ‐ FIS : 11.1 vs 4.7; P = 0.011). Analysis of covariance ( ANCOVA ) reaffirmed that controls outperformed proctectomy patients ( P = 0.006). Conclusion SNM for FI after proctectomy appears less effective than SNM in patients without proctectomy, with high device explantation rates, particularly after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and proctectomy for low rectal cancer.