Premium
Value of sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence: a comparison to the artificial bowel sphincter
Author(s) -
Meurette G.,
La Torre M.,
Regenet N.,
RobertYap J.,
Lehur P. A.
Publication year - 2009
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/j.1463-1318.2008.01633.x
Subject(s) - medicine , constipation , sacral nerve stimulation , quality of life (healthcare) , sphincter , anal sphincter , fecal incontinence , etiology , external anal sphincter , anorectal manometry , internal anal sphincter , defecation , surgery , urology , anal canal , rectum , nursing
Objective Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a recent treatment option in the management of severe faecal incontinence (FI) that offers promising results. The aim of this study was to compare SNS to artificial bowel sphincter (ABS) implanted patients to assess the rationale of this approach in achieving satisfying functional results and improved quality of life (QoL). Method Among 27 patients tested (December 2001 and April 2004), 15 patients were successfully managed with SNS. They were compared to 15 matched patients implanted with ABS in a previous period (control group). Assessment of continence level (Cleveland Clinic score), constipation score (Knowles, Eccersley, Scott Score) and QoL (Short‐Form 36) were prospectively collected. Results Both groups were comparable for clinical parameters (age, gender, anal testing and aetiology of incontinence) and anal physiology. The mean postoperative continence score was significantly higher in the SNS group [9.4 (±3.3) vs 5.7 (±3.9), P < 0.01]; however, the mean constipation score was higher in the ABS group (6.3 ± 6.3 vs 12.8 ± 5.7, P < 0.01). The mean QoL score was similar in both groups. The mean follow‐up after implantation was 15 (±9) months in the SNS group, and 43 (±33) months in the ABS group. Conclusion In this study, SNS offers satisfying results in terms of QoL, similar to that of ABS. Although it seems to be less effective in restoring continence level, symptoms of outlet obstruction are more frequent after ABS. This SNS approach should be proposed as a first‐line treatment of FI in selected patients. ABS should remain an option that can improve function.