Outcome of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation (PTNS) for Fecal Incontinence: A Prospective Cohort Study. Ann Surg. 2013;Aug 23; Epub ahead of print. [PMID: 23979291 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3182a6266c]

Treatment of anterior resection syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been a lack of research comparing the efficacy of various treatments for low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search across six electronic databases and a paired meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of the interventions. Furthermore, a network meta-analysis was utilized to compare the efficacy of different treatments for LARS.

RESULTS

This study encompassed nine randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 450 patients. Compared to routine care, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (follow-up<3 months) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (3 months ≤ follow-up <6 months) were effective in reducing the LARS score. Pelvic floor rehabilitation (follow-up≤3 months) was effective in decreasing daily number of bowel movements when compared to routine care. The network meta-analysis indicated that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (follow-up<3 months) were the most effective in reducing both the LARS score and the daily number of bowel movements. Transanal irrigation (3 months ≤ follow-up ≤ 12 months) was most effective in reducing the LARS score. Additionally, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists demonstrated relative efficacy in improving patients' quality of life (follow-up ≤ 1 month).

CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and anal irrigation show significant promise in the treatment of LARS. Nevertheless, the contributions of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and pelvic floor rehabilitation to LARS treatment should not be overlooked. Given the clinical heterogeneity observed among the studies, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Baiona's Consensus Statement for Fecal Incontinence. Spanish Association of Coloproctology

Faecal incontinence (FI) is a major health problem, both for individuals and for health systems. It is obvious that, for all these reasons, there is widespread concern for healing it or, at least, reducing as far as possible its numerous undesirable effects, in addition to the high costs it entails. There are different criteria for the diagnostic tests to be carried out and the same applies to the most appropriate treatment, among the numerous options that have proliferated in recent years, not always based on rigorous scientific evidence. For this reason, the Spanish Association of Coloproctology (AECP) proposed to draw up a consensus to serve as a guide for all health professionals interested in the problem, aware, however, that the therapeutic decision must be taken on an individual basis: patient characteristics/experience of the care team. For its development it was adopted the Nominal Group Technique methodology. The Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation were established according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. In addition, expert recommendations were added briefly to each of the items analysed.

The Role of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation (PTNS) in Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the pooled efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in patients with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines. The primary endpoint was the pooled effect size of PTNS in LARS score (LARSS). Secondary endpoints included incontinence (Fecal Incontinence Score-FIC, Obstructive Defecation Syndrome-ODS), sexual functionality and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires, and manometric evaluations. Continuous outcomes were reported as weighted mean difference (WMD), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Quality evaluation was performed via the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool.

RESULTS

Overall, 5 studies were included. PTNS resulted to reduced LARSS values (WMD: - 5.68, 95%CI: - 7.73, - 3.63, p < 0.001). A similar effect was noted in St Mark's FIC (p < 0.001) and ODS (p = 0.02) score. An improvement in several QoL scales was found. There was no effect in sexual functionality and manometric measurements. Compared to sham, PTNS significantly improved LARSS.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of PTNS in patients with LARS results in an improvement in multiple clinical parameters, including defecation functionality and quality of life. Due to several study limitations, further high quality RCTs are required to delineate the exact efficacy of PTNS.

Long-term efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and a new approach for partial responders

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) for patients with faecal incontinence (FI) refractory to conservative treatment. Secondary aims were to identify predictors of response and validate new treatment pathways for partial responders.

METHODS

A prospective, interventional study was carried out in a specialist defecatory disorder unit from a university hospital between January 2010 and June 2017 on patients > 18 years old with FI refractory to conservative treatment. Thirty-minute PTNS sessions were performed in three phases (weekly, biweekly and monthly) up to a year, with clinical reassessment at 3, 6, 12 and 36 months. Patients were classified as optimal responders when their pretreatment Wexner score decreased > 50%; partial responders when it decreased 25-50%; and insufficient responders if it decreased < 25%. Only optimal and partial responders progressed into successive phases.

RESULTS

Between 2010 and 2017, 139 patients (110 women, median age 63 years [range 22-82 years]) were recruited. After the first phase, 4 patients were optimal responders, 93 were partial responders and 36 were insufficient responders. At 6 and 12 months, 66 and 89 patients respectively were optimal responders, with an optimal response rate of 64% at the end of treatment. A total of 93.3% patients with a partial response initially finally became optimal responders. Furthermore, at 36 months, 71.9% of patients were still optimal responders without supplementary treatment, although their quality of life did not improve significantly. Baseline Wexner scores ≤ 10 and symptom duration < 1 year were identified as predictive factors for positive responses to PTNS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing PTNS for 1 year following this protocol had optimal long-term responses. PTNS sessions for up to 1 year in patients who were partial responders prevents a high percentage of them from needing more invasive treatments, and maintains long-term continence in patients who were optimal responders.

Importance of some technical aspects of the procedure of percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in patients with fecal incontinence

INTRODUCTION

The results of percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in the treatment of fecal incontinence (IF) are modest. The aim of the study is to assess the relationship of some technical aspects with the clinical response: location of the nerve, distal response (motor or sensory) and accommodation.

METHODS

Prospective study of patients with FI undergoing PTNS therapy. The clinical response was assessed using the Wexner scale, defecation diary and anorectal manometry.

RESULTS

32 patients were studied. The intensity of localization (proximity to the nerve) was not correlated with clinical or manometric changes. Motor response was associated with a decrease on the Wexner scale [12.12 (±5.39) to 7.71 (±4.57) P < .005], the number of episodes of passive incontinence [8.78 (±9.64) to 4.11 (±7.11) P = .025], the total number of incontinence episodes [16.11 (±16.03) to 7.78 (±11.34) P = .009] and the number of days with fecal soiling [6.89 (±5.53) to 2.56 (±4.13) P = .002] and with an increase in the length of the manometric anal canal at rest [4.55 (±0.596) to 4.95 (±0.213) P = .004]. The increase in stimulation (accommodation) was inversely correlated with the decrease in the Wexner scale (r = -0.677 P < .005) and the number of days with soiling (r = -0.650 P = .022).

CONCLUSIONS

The motor response during PTNS seems to be related to a better clinical response. The accommodation phenomenon could be associated with worse results. The proximity of the electrode to the nerve does not seem to be important as long as a good distal response is achieved.

Randomized Pilot Study: Anal Inserts Versus Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Patients With Fecal Incontinence

BACKGROUND

Anal inserts and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation may be offered to those with fecal incontinence in whom other conservative treatments have failed.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare anal inserts and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation.

DESIGN

This was an investigator-blinded randomized pilot study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a large tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

Adult patients with passive or mixed fecal incontinence were recruited.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the anal inserts or weekly percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for a period of 3 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was a 50% reduction of episodes of fecal incontinence per week as calculated by a prospectively completed 2-week bowel diary. Secondary end points were St Mark's incontinence score, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Bowel scores (for bowel pattern, bowel control, and quality of life), use of antidiarrheal agents, estimates of comfort and acceptability.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were recruited: 25 were randomly assigned to anal inserts and 25 were randomly assigned to percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation. All completed treatment. A significant improvement of scores in the 2-week bowel diary, the St Mark's scores and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Bowel scores, was seen in both groups after 3 months of treatment. A reduction of ≥50% fecal incontinence episodes was reached by 76% (n = 19/25) by the anal insert group, compared with 48% (n = 12/25) of those in the percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation group (p = 0.04). The St Mark's fecal incontinence scores and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Bowel scores for bowel pattern, bowel control, and quality of life (p = 0.01) suggest similar improvement for each group.

LIMITATIONS

A realistic sample size calculation could not be performed because of the paucity of objective prospective studies assessing the effect of the insert device and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Both anal insert and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation improved the symptoms of fecal incontinence after 3 months of treatment. The insert device appeared to be more effective than percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation. Larger studies are needed to investigate this further. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B460.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov No. NCT04273009.

ESTUDIO PILOTO ALEATORIZADO DE INSERCIONES ANALES CONTRA LA ESTIMULACIN PERCUTNEA DEL NERVIO TIBIAL EN PACIENTES CON INCONTINENCIA FECAL

ANTECEDENTES:Las inserciones anales y la estimulación percutánea del nervio tibial (PTNS) se pueden ofrecer a las personas con incontinencia fecal que han fallado en otros tratamientos conservadores.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue comparar inserciones anales y estimulación percutánea del nervio tibial.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio piloto aleatorio ciego para investigadores.AJUSTE:El estudio se realizó en un hospital de atención terciaria.PACIENTES:Se reclutaron pacientes adultos con incontinencia fecal pasiva o mixta.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron asignados al azar para recibir inserciones anales o estimulación del nervio tibial percutáneo semanal durante un período de tres meses.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El principal resultado fue una reducción del 50% de los episodios de incontinencia fecal por semana, según lo calculado mediante un diario intestinal de dos semanas completado de forma prospectiva. Los criterios de valoración secundarios fueron la puntuación de incontinencia de St Mark, las puntuaciones del ICIQ-B (para patrón intestinal, control intestinal y calidad de vida), uso de agentes antidiarreicos, estimaciones de comodidad y aceptabilidad.RESULTADOS:Se reclutaron 50 pacientes: 25 fueron asignados al azar a inserciones anales y 25 a PTNS. Todo el tratamiento completado. Se observó una mejora significativa de las puntuaciones en el diario intestinal de dos semanas, la puntuación de St Mark y la puntuación del ICIQ-B en ambos grupos después de 3 meses de tratamiento. Se alcanzó una reducción de ≥ 50% de los episodios de incontinencia fecal en un 76% (n = 19/25) en el grupo de inserción anal, en comparación con el 48% (n = 12/25) de los del grupo de estimulación percutánea del nervio tibial (p = 0,04). Las puntuaciones de incontinencia fecal de St Mark, las puntuaciones del ICIQ-B para el patrón intestinal, el control intestinal y la calidad de vida (p = 0,01) sugieren una mejora similar para cada grupo.LIMITACIONES:No se pudo realizar un cálculo realista del tamaño de la muestra debido a la escasez de estudios prospectivos objetivos que evaluaran el efecto del dispositivo de inserción y la estimulación percutánea del nervio tibial.CONCLUSIONES:Tanto la inserción anal como la estimulación percutánea del nervio tibial mejoraron los síntomas de incontinencia fecal después de 3 meses de tratamiento. El dispositivo de inserción parecia ser más efectivo que la estimulación percutánea del nervio tibial. Se necesitan estudios más amplios para investigar esto más a fondo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B460.NÚMERO DE REGISTRO DE PRUEBA:Clinicaltrials.gov No. NCT04273009.

Percutaneous electrical stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve for the treatment of fecal incontinence: manometric results after 6 months of treatment

BACKGROUND

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is a minimally invasive approach with little adverse effects, but obtaining good results as shown in the different scales for the evaluation of the severity of incontinence. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of PTNS based on manometric determinations of the anal sphincter and severity during a period of treatment of 6 months (18 sessions).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective interventional study of patients with fecal incontinence was performed. Subjects underwent one 30-min session every week for 12 weeks, followed by 6 sessions every 2 weeks. The effect on incontinence was evaluated by means of St. Marks and defecatory urgency scales, and manometry.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were included. At baseline, 28.8% of the patients had a retention time of less than 1 min. At 12 weeks, 39.7% of the patients presented a retention time to 5-10 min and at 18 weeks 37% presented it over 10 min. At baseline, mean St Marks score was 15.1 + 5.1, improving after 12 weeks of treatment to 8.9 + 5 (p < 0.001). After 18 sessions, a greater improvement was observed up to 4 + 4.8 (p < 0.001). Maximum resting pressure showed a significant increase after treatment (mean increase 9.8 mmHg; p = 0.006). Similarly, maximum squeeze pressure also presented a significant augmentation (mean increase 25.3 mmHg; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Eighteen sessions of PTNS, divided in 12 weekly sessions and 6 sessions every 2 weeks, have shown to obtain benefits, reducing the St. Marks and the defecatory urgency scores, and increasing the manometric values.

Importance of some technical aspects of the procedure of percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in patients with fecal incontinence

INTRODUCTION

The results of percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in the treatment of fecal incontinence (IF) are modest. The aim of the study is to assess the relationship of some technical aspects with the clinical response: location of the nerve, distal response (motor or sensory) and accommodation.

METHODS

Prospective study of patients with FI undergoing PTNS therapy. The clinical response was assessed using the Wexner scale, defecation diary and anorectal manometry.

RESULTS

32 patients were studied. The intensity of localization (proximity to the nerve) was not correlated with clinical or manometric changes. Motor response was associated with a decrease on the Wexner scale [12.12 (± 5.39) to 7.71 (± 4.57) p < 0.005], the number of episodes of passive incontinence [8.78 (± 9.64) to 4.11 (± 7.11) p = 0.025], the total number of incontinence episodes [16.11 (± 16.03) to 7.78 (± 11.34) p = 0.009] and the number of days with faecal soiling [6.89 (± 5.53) to 2.56 (± 4.13) p = 0.002] and with an increase in the length of the manometric anal canal at rest [4.55 (± 0.596) to 4.95 (± 0.213) p = 0.004]. The increase in stimulation (accommodation) was inversely correlated with the decrease in the Wexner scale (r = -0.677 p < 0.005) and the number of days with soiling (r = -0.650 p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

The motor response during PTNS seems to be related to a better clinical response. The accommodation phenomenon could be associated with worse results. The proximity of the electrode to the nerve does not seem to be important as long as a good distal response is achieved.

Evaluation of the anorectal motor response after percutaneous stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve in patients with fecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

The effect of posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) on the mechanisms of anal continence has not been fully demonstrated. The aim of this study was to assess the anal manometric response after percutaneous PTNS in patients with fecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

This was a prospective study in patients with FI undergoing 1 weekly session of percutaneous PTNS for 8 weeks. A clinical assessment (Wexner scale) and a complete study of up to 22 manometric parameters were carried out prior to treatment and 2-4 weeks after the end of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients were evaluated. After therapy, there was a decrease in the average Wexner score [12.6 (± 5.2) to 9.5 (± 5.2) (P < 0.005)] and an increase in the "anal canal length at rest" [4.55 (± 0.60) to 4.95 (± 0.21) P = 0.004], without observing variations in other manometric parameters. The decrease in the Wexner score was significantly correlated with an increase in the "pressure at 5 cm at rest" after therapy (r = 0.464 P = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, PTNS was associated with a significant decrease in the Wexner score and with an increase in the functional length of the anal canal at rest. The improvement in the Wexner scale was correlated with an increase in pressure at rest in the theoretical area of the anorectal junction.

Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Fecal Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation (PTNS) in the control of Fecal Incontinence (FI).

METHODS

Two independent reviewers extensively searched in the electronic databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus for the studies published until the end of 2016. Only randomized clinical trials were included. The studied outcomes included FI episodes, FI score, resting pressure, squeezing pressure, and maximum tolerable pressure. The data were reported as Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Five articles were included in the present study (249 patients under treatment with PTNS and 239 in the sham group). Analyses showed that PTNS led to a significant decrease in the number of FI episodes (SMD=-0.38; 95% CI: -0.67-0.10; P=0.009). Yet, it did not have an effect on FI score (SMD=0.13; 95% CI: -0.49-0.75; P=0.68), resting pressure (SMD=0.12; 95% CI: -0.14-0.37; P=0.67), squeezing pressure (SMD=-0.27; 95% CI: -1.03-0.50; P=0.50), and maximum tolerable pressure (SMD=-0.10; 95% CI: -0.40-0.24; P=0.52).

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, it seems that the prescription of PTNS alone cannot significantly improve FI.

The anatomy of Trans-Obturator Posterior Anal Sling (TOPAS) and dynamics of potential mechanism of action

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the course of the transobturator posterior anal sling and its relationship to anatomical structures.

METHODS

The transobturator anal sling procedure was performed in four fresh-frozen pelvises. The pelvises were dissected and the structures adjacent to the sling and the course of the sling were identified and measurements obtained.

RESULTS

The transobturator posterior anal sling was inserted 2 ± 0.5 cm posteriorly to the anus, and 2.5 ± 0.5 cm caudal to the coccyx under the levator plate at the level of the puborectalis muscle. The tape was 3.5 ± 0.5 cm from the pubic symphysis and 2.3 ± 0.3 cm from the obturator canal at entry into the pelvic cavity. The tape passed 2.3 ± 0.3 cm inferior-medial to the obturator canal. At entry, the sling passed lateral to the ischiopubic ramus through the following structures: gracilis, adductor brevis, obturator externus, obturator membrane, and beneath the obturator internus muscle. The sling traveled 2-3 ± 0.5 cm over the iliococcygeus muscle and perforated the iliococcygeus fibers 0-2 cm medial to arcus tendinous levator ani. The posterior division of the obturator nerve was 2.8 ± 0.7 cm from the tape. The anterior division of the obturator nerve was 3.4 ± 0.8 cm from the tape. The device passed 1.1 ± 0.4 cm from the most medial branch of the obturator vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

The transobturator posterior anal sling travels mostly in the avascular area of the ischiorectal fossa and posterior to the puborectalis muscle as intended.

Medium-term outcome of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in the treatment of fecal incontinence

INTRODUCTION

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a multifactorial disease that affects patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in the treatment of FI and to assess the medium-term results.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients with FI treated with PTNS between 2012 and 2014 was analysed. Endoluminal ultrasound and anorectal physiologic studies were performed in all patients. The efficacy of PTNS was assessed using a validated questionnaire (Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score) at baseline, after treatment, and 2 years later. The Vaizey score was also used at 2-year follow-up to assess urge incontinence.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients (38 females; mean age 59.7 years) with FI were treated. The causes of FI were mainly obstetric injury and previous colorectal surgery. A decrease of 50% from baseline CCIS was seen in 41.1% of patients after PTNS. One-third maintained a minimum of 50% decrease of their initial CCIS after 2 years. Comparing CCIS at baseline, after treatment, and at 2-year follow-up, a statistically significant difference was observed (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0004 respectively). Medium-term improvement was not maintained in patients with passive and mixed FI, while it was maintained in those with urge incontinence. At 2 years, patients with mild incontinence maintained the greatest response.

CONCLUSIONS

PTNS is a safe, effective, non-invasive treatment for FI with good results in almost half of the patients at the end of the treatment. There is also an acceptable maintained response at 2-year follow-up. It seems to be most successful in patients with mild incontinence and urge incontinence.

Cost-effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous sacral nerve stimulation is recommended by the United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as a second-line treatment for patients with faecal incontinence who failed conservative therapy. Sacral nerve stimulation is an invasive procedure associated with complications and reoperations. This study aimed to investigate whether delivering less invasive and less costly percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation prior to sacral nerve stimulation is cost-effective.

METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation with subsequent subcutaneous sacral nerve stimulation versus subcutaneous sacral nerve stimulation alone. The model was populated with effectiveness data from systematic reviews and cost data from randomized studies comparing both procedures in a UK National Health Service (NHS) setting.

RESULTS

Offering percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation prior to sacral nerve stimulation (compared with delivering sacral nerve stimulation straight away) was both more effective and less costly in all modeled scenarios. The estimated savings from offering percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation first were £662-£5,697 per patient. The probability of this strategy being cost-effective was around 80% at £20,000-£30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

CONCLUSION

Our analyses suggest that offering patients percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation prior to sacral nerve stimulation can be both cost-effective and cost-saving in the treatment of faecal incontinence.

Factors Associated With Efficacy of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence, Based on Post-Hoc Analysis of Data From a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A recent randomized, multi-center, phase 3 trial, performed in the United Kingdom (Control of Fecal Incontinence using Distal Neuromodulation Trial), demonstrated no significant clinical benefit of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) compared to sham stimulation in patients with fecal incontinence (FI). However, this study did not analyze predictors of response. We used data from this trial to identify factors that predict the efficacy of PTNS in adults with FI.

METHODS

The study population comprised 205 patients from the CONtrol of Fecal Incontinence using Distal NeuromodulaTion Trial. The primary outcome was a binary indicator of success (≥50% reduction in weekly FI episodes after 12 weeks of treatment) or failure, as per the original trial characteristics including baseline FI symptom type, defecatory urgency, and co-existent symptoms of baseline liquid stool consistency and obstructive defecation (OD) were defined a priori. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to explore these factors as predictors of response to PTNS and sham.

RESULTS

In both univariable and multivariable analysis, the presence of OD symptoms negatively predicted outcome in patients who received PTNS (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91; P = .029), and positively predicted sham response (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.31-9.21; P = .012). No other tested variable affected outcome. Re-analysis of the primary outcome excluding patients with OD symptoms (n = 112) resulted in a significant clinical effect of PTNS compared to sham (48.9% vs 18.2% response, P = .002; multivariable OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.71-12.93; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant OD symptoms negatively affected the clinical outcome of PTNS vs sham in a major randomized controlled trial. Future appropriately designed studies could further explore this observation with potential for future stratified patient selection.

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (pTNS): success rate and the role of rectal capacity

PURPOSE

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (pTNS) was originally developed to treat urinary incontinence. Recently, some case series have also documented its success in the treatment of fecal incontinence. Nevertheless, the mechanism underlying this effect remains unknown but may be related to changes in rectal capacity. The aim of this study was to investigate the success of pTNS for the treatment of fecal urge incontinence and assess the influence of rectal capacity on treatment efficacy.

METHODS

All patients undergoing pTNS for fecal incontinence between July 2009 and March 2014 were enrolled in a prospective, observational study consisting of a therapeutic regimen that lasted 9 months. Therapy success was defined as a reduction in the CCI (Cleveland Clinic incontinence) score of ≥50% and patient-reported success. Furthermore, quality of life (Rockwood's scale) and changes in anorectal physiology were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients with fecal urge incontinence were eligible, nine of whom were excluded. The success rate was 72.5%. Incontinence events and urge symptoms were significantly reduced after 3 months and at the end of therapy. The median CCI score decreased from 12 to 4 (P < 0.0001), and the quality of life was significantly improved. However, rectal capacity was not significantly related to treatment success before or after therapy. No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that pTNS can improve the symptoms and quality of life of patients with fecal urge incontinence. However, the study fails to demonstrate a correlation between treatment success and changes in rectal capacity.

Evidence-Based Update on Treatments of Fecal Incontinence in Women

Fecal incontinence is a highly prevalent and distressing condition that has a negative impact on quality of life. The etiology is often multifactorial, and the evaluation and treatment of this condition can be hindered by a lack of understanding of the mechanisms and currently available treatment options. This article reviews the evidence-based update for the management of fecal incontinence.

Short-term outcome of percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) for the treatment of faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to establish the efficacy of percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in treating flatal, urge and passive faecal incontinence (FI).

METHODS

A prospective study with 55 patients with FI was carried out. Clinical anamnesis, physical examination, a reverse visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Wexner score and the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons quality of life score were recorded at baseline and 6 months, along with an incontinence diary. Subjects underwent one weekly session for 12 consecutive weeks and then continued with six additional fortnightly sessions. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients (44 females; mean age 58.62 ± 10.74 years) with FI were treated with PTNS. The origins of the incontinence were obstetric (52.7 %) and perineal surgery (34.5 %). Eight patients did not continue with the second stage of treatment. The median Wexner baseline value was 9.98. After 6 months, it had decreased to 4.55 (p < 0.001). The visual analogue scale (VAS) increased from 4.94 to 6.80 (p < 0.001). There was a significant improvement in lifestyle, coping/behaviour, depression/self-perception and embarrassment scores. With respect to different types of FI, there was an improvement in the Wexner score both in patients with true passive FI and in those with urge or mixed FI.

CONCLUSIONS

PTNS is an effective treatment for FI. Patients with passive or urge FI can benefit from this therapy, with improvement of the Wexner score and quality of life variables.

New developments in therapies for fecal incontinence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Fecal incontinence is a common problem among women, affecting between 2 and 7% of the general population. Although pelvic reconstructive surgeons have had many effective tools and techniques to treat other pelvic floor disorders, including pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence, there has been a shortage of effective treatment options for fecal incontinence.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past few years, however, we have witnessed the introduction of several novel and intriguing treatments for this socially disabling condition. This renaissance of innovation speaks to the recognition that fecal incontinence is a significant pelvic floor disorder that we have not adequately addressed. Recent studies include research on a novel vaginal device to treat fecal incontinence, as well as long-term and comparative studies on neuromodulation, perianal bulking and transanal radiofrequency energy. There have also been recent studies on several novel, yet still unapproved, implantable devices, including a self-affixing rectal sling and a magnetic sphincter.

SUMMARY

In the not-too-distant future, it appears that pelvic reconstructive surgeons will have a vast armamentarium of tools to manage one of the more vexing pelvic floor conditions we face in our daily practice. With the introduction of these new treatments, it will be important to develop a logical algorithm in our approach to fecal incontinence.

Double-blind randomised controlled trial of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham electrical stimulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence: CONtrol of Faecal Incontinence using Distal NeuromodulaTion (the CONFIDeNT trial)

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence (FI) is a common condition which is often under-reported. It is distressing for those suffering from it, impacting heavily on their quality of life. When conservative strategies fail, treatment options are limited. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is a minimally invasive outpatient treatment, shown in preliminary case series to have significant effectiveness; however, no randomised controlled trial has been conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of PTNS compared with sham electrical stimulation in the treatment of patients with FI in whom initial conservative strategies have failed.

DESIGN

Multicentre, parallel-arm, double-blind randomised (1 : 1) controlled trial.

SETTING

Eighteen UK centres providing specialist nurse-led (or equivalent) treatment for pelvic floor disorders.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants aged > 18 years with FI who have failed conservative treatments and whose symptoms are sufficiently severe to merit further intervention.

INTERVENTIONS

PTNS was delivered via the Urgent(®) PC device (Uroplasty Limited, Manchester, UK), a hand-held pulse generator unit, with single-use leads and fine-needle electrodes. The needle was inserted near the tibial nerve on the right leg adhering to the manufacturer's protocol (and specialist training). Treatment was for 30 minutes weekly for a duration of 12 treatments. Validated sham stimulation involved insertion of the Urgent PC needle subcutaneously at the same site with electrical stimulation delivered to the distal foot using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 2 weeks following treatment. Clinical outcomes were derived from bowel diaries and validated, investigator-administered questionnaires. The primary outcome classified patients as responders or non-responders, with a responder defined as someone having achieved ≥ 50% reduction in weekly faecal incontinence episodes (FIEs).

RESULTS

In total, 227 patients were randomised from 373 screened: 115 received PTNS and 112 received sham stimulation. There were 12 trial withdrawals: seven from the PTNS arm and five from the sham arm. Missing data were multiply imputed. For the primary outcome, the proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in weekly FIEs was similar in both arms: 39 in the PTNS arm (38%) compared with 32 in the sham arm (31%) [odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.28; p = 0.396]. For the secondary outcomes, significantly greater decreases in weekly FIEs were observed in the PTNS arm than in the sham arm (beta -2.3, 95% CI -4.2 to -0.3; p = 0.02), comprising a reduction in urge FIEs (p = 0.02) rather than passive FIEs (p = 0.23). No significant differences were found in the St Mark's Continence Score or any quality-of-life measures. No serious adverse events related to treatment were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

PTNS did not show significant clinical benefit over sham electrical stimulation in the treatment of FI based on number of patients who received at least a 50% reduction in weekly FIE. It would be difficult to recommend this therapy for the patient population studied. Further research will concentrate on particular subgroups of patients, for example those with pure urge FI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88559475.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 77. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A posterior anal sling for fecal incontinence: results of a 152-patient prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The transobturator posterior anal sling (TOPAS) system is a posterior anal sling that is a minimally invasive, self-fixating polypropylene mesh intended to treat fecal incontinence (FI) in women who have failed conservative therapy.

OBJECTIVE

We are reporting 1-year outcome in a prospective, multicenter study under investigational device exemption, evaluating this new treatment modality.

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 152 women were implanted with the TOPAS system at 14 centers in the United States. FI was assessed preoperatively and at the 12-month follow up with a 14-day bowel diary, Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Scores, and FI Quality of Life questionnaires. Treatment success was defined as reduction in number of FI episodes of ≥50% compared to baseline. Missing bowel diary data were considered treatment failures. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare changes observed at 12 months vs baseline.

RESULTS

Mean age was 59.6 years old (SD 9.7). The mean duration of FI was 110 mo (range 8-712) months. Mean length of the implant procedure was 33.4 (SD 11.6) minutes. Mean EBL was 12.9 (SD 10.5) mL. Average follow-up was 24.9 months. At 12 months, 69.1% of patients met the criteria for treatment success, and 19% of subjects reported complete continence. FI episodes/wk decreased from a median of 9.0 (range 2-40) at baseline to 2.5 (range 0-40) (P < .001). FI days decreased from a median of 5.0 (range 1.5-7) at baseline to 2.0 (range 0-7) (P < .001) over a 7-day period. FI associated with urgency decreased from a median at baseline of 2.0 (range 0-26) to 0 (range 0-14.5) (P < .001). The mean Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Scores decreased from 13.9 at baseline to 9.6 at 12 months (P < .001). FI Quality of Life scores for all 4 domains improved significantly from baseline to 12 months (P < .001). A total of 66 subjects experienced 104 procedure- and/or device-related adverse events (AEs). Most AEs were short in duration and 97% were managed without therapy or with nonsurgical interventions. No treatment-related deaths, erosions, extrusions, or device revisions were reported. The most common AE categories were pelvic pain (n = 47) and infection (n = 26). Those subjects experiencing pelvic pain had a mean pain score (0-10 scale, 0 = no pain) during the 12-month follow-up of 1.2 (SD 2.4).

CONCLUSION

The TOPAS system provides significant improvements in FI symptoms and quality of life with an acceptable AE profile and may therefore be a viable minimally invasive treatment option for FI in women.

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence: a systematic evidence review

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVES

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is a potential emerging therapy for fecal incontinence (FI). The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the efficacy of PTNS as a treatment of FI.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from inception through November 2013. We included English-language full-text articles reporting outcomes for FI with either percutaneous PTNS or transcutaneous techniques (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation). We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess study quality.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 1154 citations; 129 abstracts and 17 articles were included for full-text review. There were 13 case series and 4 randomized controlled trials. Fifteen studies were of low quality, none were of fair quality, and 2 studies were of good quality based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. In total, 745 subjects were studied, and of those, 90% were women and 10% were men. Studies involved percutaneous PTNS in 57% (428/745) of the subjects, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in 30% (223/745), and sham technique in 13% (94/745). Therapy frequency, maintenance therapy, and follow-up time varied across studies. Eleven studies assessed FI episodes and bowel movement deferment time; all but 1 showed statistical improvement after therapy. Ten of the 11 studies that used the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence score reported statistically significantly improved scores after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Multiple low-quality studies show improvement in FI after PTNS. High-quality studies with comparison groups and clinically meaningful outcome measures would further establish the utility of PTNS for FI.

Short-term Outcomes of a Randomized Pilot Trial of 2 Treatment Regimens of Transcutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is a socially disabling condition that affects ≤15% of adults. Neuromodulatory treatments for fecal incontinence are now well established. Less invasive, cheaper, and more ambulatory forms of neuromodulation are under exploration.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the acceptability and safety of a new ambulatory tibial nerve stimulation device and to determine clinical effect size for 2 differing regimens of therapy.

DESIGN

This was a randomized, investigator-blinded, parallel-arm, 6-week pilot trial.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 7 United Kingdom trial centers. Patients were initially reviewed in the trial center, with subsequent applications of the device performed in the patients home setting.

PATIENTS

A total of 43 eligible patients (38 women) who failed conservative management of fecal incontinence were included in the study.

INTERVENTION

The study intervention involved twice-weekly, 1- versus 4-hour transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for 6 weeks (total of 12 treatments).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Standard fecal incontinence outcome tools (bowel diary, symptom severity score, and generic quality-of-life instruments) were used to collect data at baseline and at 2 weeks posttreatment cessation.

RESULTS

A total of 22 patients were randomly assigned to the 1-hour group and 21 to the 4-hour group. Improvements in fecal incontinence outcomes were observed for both groups, including median urge incontinence episodes per week at baseline and posttreatment (1-hour group 2.0 to 0.5 versus 4-hour group 4.0 to 1.0) and deferment time (1-hour group 2.0 to 2.0 minutes versus 4-hour group 0.5 to 5.0 minutes). Accompanying changes were observed in physical functioning domains of quality-of-life instruments. There were no adverse events, and the treatment was highly acceptable to patients.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations included the pilot design and lack of control arm in the study. Future trials would need to address these limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study provides evidence that transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation with a new ambulatory device is safe and acceptable for the management of fecal incontinence. Additional study is warranted to investigate clinical effectiveness.

Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence and constipation in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation are both socially-embarrassing and physically-disabling conditions that impair quality of life. For both, surgery may be required in a minority of people when more conservative measures fail. However, the invasiveness and irreversible nature of direct surgery on bowel and sphincter muscles, poor long-term outcomes and well-established compIications makes such procedures unappealing for these benign conditions. A less-invasive surgical option to treat faecal incontinence and constipation is direct, low-voltage stimulation of the sacral nerve roots, termed sacral nerve stimulation (SNS). SNS has become the first line surgical treatment for FI in people failing conservative therapies. Its value in the treatment of constipation is less clear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sacral nerve stimulation using implanted electrodes for the treatment of faecal incontinence and constipation in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 5 February 2015), EMBASE (1 January 1947 to 2015 Week 5), and the reference lists of retrieved relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing the effects of SNS for faecal incontinence or constipation in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results, assessed the methodological quality of the included trials, and undertook data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

Six crossover trials and two parallel group trials were included.Six trials assessed the effects of SNS for FI. In the parallel group trial conducted by Tjandra, 53 participants with severe FI in the SNS group experienced fewer episodes of faecal incontinence compared to the control group who received optimal medical therapy (mean difference (MD) -5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.15 to -1.25 at 3 months; MD -6.30, 95% CI -10.34 to -2.26 at 12 months). Adverse events were reported in a proportion of participants: pain at implant site (6%), seroma (2%) and excessive tingling in the vaginal region (9%).In the parallel group trial carried out by Thin, 15 participants with FI in the SNS group experienced fewer episodes of FI compared with the percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) group (MD -3.00, 95% CI -6.61 to 0.61 at 3 months; MD -3.20, 95% CI -7.14 to 0.74 at 12 months). Adverse events were reported in three participants: mild ipsilateral leg pain during temporary testing (n = 1); and stimulator-site pain following insertion of neurostimulator (n = 2).In the crossover trial by Leroi 7 of 34 recruited participants were excluded from the crossover due mainly to complications or immediate device failure. Twenty-four of the remaining 27 participants while still blinded chose the period of stimulation they had preferred. Outcomes were reported separately for 19 participants who preferred the 'on' and five who preferred the 'off' period. For the group of 19, the median (range) episodes of faecal incontinence per week fell from 1.7 (0 to 9) during the 'off' period to 0.7 (0 to 5) during the 'on' period; for the group of five, however, the median (range) rose from 1.7 (0 to 11) during the 'off' period compared with 3.7 (0 to 11) during the 'on' period. Four of 27 participants experienced an adverse event resulting in removal of the stimulator.In the crossover trial by Sørensen and colleagues, participants did not experience any FI episodes in either the one-week 'on' or 'off' periods.In the crossover trial by Vaizey, participants reported an average of six, and one, episodes of faecal incontinence per week during the 'off' and 'on' periods respectively in two participants with FI. Neither study reported adverse events.In the crossover trial by Kahlke, 14 participants with FI experienced significantly lower episodes of FI per week during the stimulator 'on' (1 (SD, 1.7)) compared with the 'off' period (8.4 (SD, 8.7)). Adverse events reported include: haematoma formation (n = 3); misplacement of tined lead (1); and pain at stimulator site (n = 1).Two trials assessed SNS for constipation. In the Kenefick trial, the two participants experienced an average of two bowel movements per week during the 'off' crossover period, compared with five during the 'on' period. Abdominal pain and bloating occurred 79% of the time during the 'off' period compared with 33% during the 'on' period. No adverse events occurred. In contrast, in the trial by Dinning with 59 participants, SNS did not improve frequency of bowel movements and 73 adverse events were reported, which included pain at site of the implanted pulse generator (32), wound infection (12), and urological (17) events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The limited evidence from the included trials suggests that SNS can improve continence in a proportion of patients with faecal incontinence. However, SNS did not improve symptoms in patients with constipation. In addition, adverse events occurred in some patients where these were reported. Rigorous high quality randomised trials are needed to allow the effects of SNS for these conditions to be assessed with more certainty.

Evaluation of Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Refractory Painful Bladder Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of intermittent percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) as a treatment modality for patients with refractory interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty female patients with IC/BPS (mean symptom duration of 4.5 ± 2.4 years) each had a 30-minute session of PTNS per week for 12 successive weeks and the symptoms were assessed before, during, and after the treatment sessions by voiding diary, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, interstitial cystitis symptom and problem indices (ICSI and ICPI), and global response assessment (GRA) scale. The scores of the previous questionnaires were evaluated at weeks 0, 6, and 12.

RESULTS

At week 0, the VAS, day time frequency, nocturia, and average voiding volume were 5.6 ± 1.1, 14.5 ± 4.0, 3.0 ± 0.9, and 131.8 ± 35.3 mL, respectively, meanwhile at week 12 these scores were 5.2 ± 1.5, 12.15 ± 3.7, 2.6 ± 0.7, and 141.0 ± 36.2, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the scores of the ICPI between weeks 0, 6, and 12 (P = .937). As regards the GRA score after the 12th session, 17 patients (85%) reported having no effect, 1 patient (5%) reported as having worse symptoms, and 2 patients (10%) reported having a mild good response.

CONCLUSION

Intermittent PTNS is not a satisfactory treatment for refractory IC/BPS. However, it is recommended to perform more studies with other treatment protocol (maybe closer sessions) to confirm these results.

Randomized clinical trial of sacral versus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in patients with faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a well established therapy for faecal incontinence (FI). Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is a newer, less invasive, treatment. The effectiveness and acceptability of these treatments have not been compared systematically.

METHODS

An investigator-blinded randomized pilot trial of PTNS versus SNS with a parallel qualitative study was performed. Quantitative clinical outcomes and qualitative data from patient interviews were collected for both interventions.

RESULTS

Forty patients (39 women; mean age 59 years) met the eligibility criteria; 23 were randomized to receive SNS and 17 to PTNS. Fifteen patients progressed to permanent SNS implantation and 16 received a full course of PTNS. Within-group effect sizes were marginally greater for SNS than for PTNS on available-case analysis. Mean(s.d.) FI episodes per week at baseline, and 3 and 6 months of follow-up were: 11·4(12·0), 4·0(4·0) and 4·9(6·9) respectively for SNS compared with 10·6(11·2), 5·8(6·9) and 6·3(6·9) for PTNS. Mean(s.d.) Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score values at baseline, and 3 and 6 months were: 16·2(3·0), 11·1(5·2) and 10·4(5·6) for SNS versus 15·1(2·7), 11·7(4·4) and 12·1(5·2) for PTNS. Improvement of at least 50 per cent in FI episodes per week at 6 months was seen in 11 of 18 patients in the SNS group compared with seven of 15 in the PTNS group. Effect estimates for SNS with chronic implanted stimulation were larger (10 of 15 patients at 6 months). Disease-specific and generic quality-of-life improvements complemented clinical outcome data. Qualitative analysis of interview data suggested that both treatments had high acceptability amongst patients.

CONCLUSION

In the short term, both SNS and PTNS provide some clinical benefit to patients with FI. Registration numbers: 2010-018728-15 and 10479 (http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=10479).

New developments in colorectal surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Surgical management of diseases of the colon and rectum continues to evolve. This review examines the recent publications that have led to or may lead to changes in practice in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified and reviewed the recent publications in the areas of colon, rectal, and anal cancers; inflammatory bowel disease; incontinence; diverticulitis; hemorrhoids; fistulas; and quality improvement initiatives.

SUMMARY

New technologies and novel questions have changed practice and will improve patient outcomes. Multiinstitutional studies, ideally randomized, continue to be essential to answer the questions that will lead to identification of best practices.

An Evidence-Based Approach to the Evaluation, Diagnostic Assessment and Treatment of Fecal Incontinence in Women

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a debilitating disorder which negatively impacts quality of life. The etiology is often multifactorial and although most women with FI are able to be treated, many remain untreated because a significant proportion of women do not report their symptoms and seek care. The evaluation and treatment of FI can be also hindered by a lack of understanding of the mechanisms and current options. This article provides a review on the evidence-based evaluation and management for FI.

Prospective clinical audit of two neuromodulatory treatments for fecal incontinence: sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Two types of neuromodulation are currently practised for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI): sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). This study compares these therapies, as no data exist to prospectively assess their relative efficacy and costs.

METHODS

The subjects of this study were two distinct cohorts undergoing SNS (between 2003 and 2008) or PTNS (2008-onwards) for FI. Clinical outcomes assessed at 3 months included incontinence scores and the number of weekly incontinence episodes. The direct medical costs for each procedure were calculated from the audited expenditure of our unit.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (94.6 % women) underwent permanent SNS and 146 (87.7 % women) underwent PTNS. The mean pre-treatment incontinence score (± SD) was greater in the SNS cohort (14 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 4) and the mean post-treatment incontinence scores were similar for the two therapies (9 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 4), with a greater effect size evident in the SNS patients. In a 'pseudo case-control' analysis with 37 "matched" patients, the effect of both treatments was similar. The cost of treating a patient for 1 year was £ 11,374 ($ 18,223) for permanent SNS vs. £ 1740 ($ 2784) for PTNS.

CONCLUSION

Given the lesser cost and invasive nature of PTNS, where both techniques are available, a trial of PTNS could be considered for all patients.

Percutaneous neuromodulation of the posterior tibial nerve for the treatment of faecal incontinence - mid-term results: is retreatment required?

AIM

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) has emerged in recent years as a therapy for faecal incontinence. Its long-term effectiveness is yet to be established, along with what the form of retreatment should be in the event of loss of effectiveness. The present study aimed to establish the mid-term results to identify the proportion of patients who may need further treatment, and if so when.

METHOD

A prospective study including 30 patients was conducted at an academic hospital. The patients underwent 12 weekly outpatient treatment sessions, each lasting 30 min (first PTNS phase). Neuromodulation was discontinued in those patients who did not have a 40% decrease in their pretreatment Wexner score. Patients having a better than 40% response were offered another 12-week course of complete treatment (second PTNS phase), following which they received no further PTNS treatment (phase without PTNS) but were assessed at 6 months and 2 years.

RESULTS

All patients finished the first phase and 22/30 patients continued to the second phase. During this phase 11 patients showed an improved Wexner score (baseline/first phase/second phase: 14.3 ± 4.2 vs 9.9 ± 5.4 vs 6.8 ± 5.4). After a 6-month period without any treatment, the score was still improved in 11/30 patients (9.1 ± 6.2). At 2 years there was improvement in 16/30 patients (8.8 ± 7.1). There was a significant improvement in three variables of the quality of life questionnaire: lifestyle, coping behaviour and embarrassment.

CONCLUSION

The response to first and second phase PTNS was maintained for up to 2 years. Retreatment was not required in about half of patients, even when they had finished the treatment 6 months or 2 years previously.

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: Where are we?

Neurostimulation remains the mainstay of treatment for patients with faecal incontinence who fails to respond to available conservative measures. Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is the main form of neurostimulation that is in use today. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) - both the percutaneous and the transcutaneous routes - remains a relatively new entry in neurostimulation. Though in its infancy, PTNS holds promise to be an effective, patient friendly, safe and cheap treatment. However, presently PTNS only appears to have a minor role with SNS having the limelight in treating patients with faecal incontinence. This seems to have arisen as the strong, uniform and evidence based data on SNS remains to have been unchallenged yet by the weak, disjointed and unsupported evidence for both percutaneous and transcutaneous PTNS. The use of PTNS is slowly gaining acceptance. However, several questions remain unanswered in the delivery of PTNS. These have raised dilemmas which as long as they remain unsolved can considerably weaken the argument that PTNS could offer a viable alternative to SNS. This paper reviews available information on PTNS and focuses on these dilemmas in the light of existing evidence.