Sacral nerve stimulation—hidden costs (uncovered)

17Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the occurrence of surgical revision in a cohort of patients treated with sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) for faecal incontinence and constipation and to establish the types of procedures performed and indications for surgery. Method: From the years 2002 to 2014, 125 patients were identified who had undergone permanent SNS therapy with 36 (28.8 %) patients requiring surgical intervention postimplantation. These cases were retrospectively reviewed (range of follow-up 1–99 months). Results: Over a total of 1512 months of SNS treatment, 51 unplanned surgical procedures were required in 36 patients. At present, 48 procedures have been performed at an average of 2.6 years following implantation and three patients are awaiting surgery. Lead-related problems accounted for 30 (58.8 %) procedures at an average of 1.7 years affecting 22 patients. Battery and implantable pulse generator-related problems attributed to 13 procedures (25.5 %) in 12 patients at an average of 5.0 years. Battery depletion occurred in seven patients at an average of 5.4 years. Surgical revision was required to replace, remove, or resite various components of the SNS system. Indications for surgery included lead damage, pain and loss or lack of SNS efficacy. Explantation was warranted in six patients due to poor SNS efficacy, pain, infection and facilitation of a magnetic resonance imaging scan. This was performed at an average of 1.6 years. Conclusion: A considerable proportion of patients treated with SNS therapy require surgical revision. These unplanned procedures are associated with substantial unexpected costs that financially burden SNS services.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zeiton, M., Faily, S., Nicholson, J., Telford, K., & Sharma, A. (2016). Sacral nerve stimulation—hidden costs (uncovered). International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 31(5), 1005–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2512-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free