Sacral Neuromodulation for Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引：157

作者：

Kessler, Thomas M. ^{[1
]}

La Framboise, David

Trelle, Sven ^{[2
,3
]}

Fowler, Clare J. ^{[4
]}

Kiss, Gustav ^{[5
]}

Pannek, Juergen ^{[6
]}

Schurch, Brigitte ^{[7
]}

Sievert, Karl-Dietrich ^{[8
]}

Engeler, Daniel S. ^{[9
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Bern, Dept Urol, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland

[2] Univ Bern, Clin Trial Unit Bern, Univ Hosp Bern, Bern, Switzerland

[3] Univ Bern, Inst Social & Prevent Med, Bern, Switzerland

[4] Univ Coll London UCL, Dept Uroneurol, Natl Hosp Neurol & Neurosurg, Hosp NHS Fdn Trust,UCL Inst Neurol, London, England

[5] Univ Innsbruck Hosp, Dept Neurol, Neurourol Unit, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria

[6] Swiss Parapleg Ctr, Nottwil, Switzerland

[7] Continence Ctr Hirslanden, Zurich, Switzerland

[8] Univ Tubingen, Dept Urol, Tubingen, Germany

[9] Cantonal Hosp St Gallen, Dept Urol, St Gallen, Switzerland

来源：

EUROPEAN UROLOGY | 2010年 / 58卷 / 06期

关键词：

Sacral neuromodulation; Neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction; Meta-analysis; SPINAL NERVE-STIMULATION; VOIDING DYSFUNCTION; URGE INCONTINENCE; PERMANENT ELECTRODES; MULTIPLE-SCLEROSIS; IMPLANTATION; RETENTION; SUCCESS; CONTRACTION; EFFICACY;

D O I：

10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.024

中图分类号：

R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学（泌尿生殖系疾病）];

学科分类号：

1002 ; 100201 ;

摘要：

Context: Treatment of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) is a challenge, because conventional therapies often fail. Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has become a well-established therapy for refractory non-neurogenic LUTD, but its value in patients with a neurologic cause is unclear. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of SNM for neurogenic LUTD. Evidence acquisition: Studies were identified by electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect (on 15 April 2010) and hand search of reference lists and review articles. SNM articles were included if they reported on efficacy and/or safety of tested and/or permanently implanted patients suffering from neurogenic LUTD. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Study estimates were pooled using Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis: Of the 26 independent studies (357 patients) included, the evidence level ranged from 2b to 4 according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Half (n = 13) of the included studies reported data on both test phase and permanent SNM; the remaining studies were confined to test phase (n = 4) or permanent SNM (n = 9). The pooled success rate was 68% for the test phase (95% credibility interval [CrI], 50-87) and 92% (95% CrI, 81-98%) for permanent SNM, with a mean follow-up of 26 mo. The pooled adverse event rate was 0% (95% CrI, 0-2%) for the test phase and 24% (95% CrI, 6-48%) for permanent SNM. Conclusions: There is evidence indicating that SNM may be effective and safe for the treatment of patients with neurogenic LUTD. However, the number of investigated patients is low with high between-study heterogeneity, and there is a lack of randomised, controlled trials. Thus, well-designed, adequately powered studies are urgently needed before more widespread use of SNM for neurogenic LUTD can be recommended. (C) 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：865 / 874

页数：10

共 59 条

[1]

Bannowsky A, 2003, UROLOGE A, V42, P1357, DOI 10.1007/s00120-003-0343-2

[2] Urodynamic changes and response rates in patients treated with permanent electrodes compared to conventional wire electrodes in the peripheral nerve evaluation test [J].