Sacral versus pudendal nerve stimulation for voiding dysfunction: A prospective, single-blinded, randomized, crossover trial

被引:134
作者
Peters, KM [1 ]
Feber, KM [1 ]
Bennett, RC [1 ]
机构
[1] William Beaumont Hosp, Dept Urol, MPURE, Royal Oak, MI 48072 USA
关键词
neuromodulation; sacral stimulation; urinary symptoms;
D O I
10.1002/nau.20174
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
Aims: The objective of the study was to compare sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) to pudendal nerve stimulation (PNS) for voiding dysfunction. Methods: Thirty subjects with voiding dysfunction had a tined lead placed at S3 and a second electrode implanted at the pudendal nerve via a posterior approach. In a blinded, randomized fashion, each lead was tested for 7 days. Voiding diaries and questionnaires were completed and outcomes monitored. Results: The time to place a sacral lead was 25.85 min, pudendal lead 23.71 min (P = 0.57). Twenty-four of 30 (80%) subjects responded and had a permanent implant placed. PNS was chosen as a superior lead in 79.2%, SNS was superior in 20.8%. The order in which the lead was simulated had no impact on the final lead implanted and no carry over effect was seen. Overall reduction in symptoms was 63% for PNS and 46% for SNS (P = 0.02). On a 7-point scale from markedly worse to markedly better, the pudendal lead was superior to sacral for pelvic pain (P = 0.024), urgency (P = 0.005), frequency (P = 0.007), and bowel function (P = 0.049). Complications were minimal. Conclusions: This is the first blinded study of sacral versus pudendal stimulation for voiding dysfunction. Successful implantation of a pudendal lead was achieved in all subjects. The majority of subjects chose PNS to be superior to SNS. More patients and longer term data is needed to confirm these promising results.
引用
收藏
页码:643 / 647
页数:5
相关论文
共 11 条
[1]   MAXIMAL ELECTROSTIMULATION OF THE PELVIC FLOOR IN FEMALE IDIOPATHIC DETRUSOR INSTABILITY AND URGE INCONTINENCE [J].
ERIKSEN, BC ;
BERGMANN, S ;
EIKNES, SH .
NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 1989, 8 (03) :219-230
[2]  
FALL M, 1977, SCAND J UROL NEPHROL, P19
[3]  
FALL M, 1991, UROL CLIN N AM, V18, P393
[4]  
Light J, 1986, J UROLOGY, V135, P198
[5]   THE NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF BLADDER INHIBITION IN RESPONSE TO INTRAVAGINAL ELECTRICAL-STIMULATION [J].
LINDSTROM, S ;
FALL, M ;
CARLSSON, CA ;
ERLANDSON, BE .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1983, 129 (02) :405-410
[6]  
Lindstrom S, 1989, NEUROUROL URODYNAM, V8, P392
[7]   Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of refractory interstitial cystitis: outcomes based on technique [J].
Peters, KM ;
Carey, JM ;
Konstandt, DB .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL AND PELVIC FLOOR DYSFUNCTION, 2003, 14 (04) :223-228
[8]   Pitfalls in the design of clinical trials for interstitial cystitis [J].
Propert, KJ ;
Payne, C ;
Kusek, JW ;
Nyberg, LM .
UROLOGY, 2002, 60 (05) :742-748
[9]   DETRUSOR INHIBITION INDUCED BY STIMULATION OF PUDENDAL NERVE AFFERENTS [J].
VODUSEK, DB ;
LIGHT, JK ;
LIBBY, JM .
NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 1986, 5 (04) :381-389
[10]   Sacral root neuromodulation in the treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence:: A prospective randomized clinical trial [J].
Weil, EHJ ;
Ruiz-Cerdá, JL ;
Eerdmans, PHA ;
Janknegt, RA ;
Bemelmans, BLH ;
van Kerrebroeck, PEV .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2000, 37 (02) :161-171