Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHagerman Ruiz Galindo, Gonzalo Federico
dc.contributor.otherCampus Ciudad de México
dc.identifier.citationOliveira, L., Hagerman, G., Torres, M. L., Lumi, C. M., Siachoque, J. A. C., Reyes, J. C. … y Wexner S. D. (2019). Sacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence in Latin America: initial results of a multicenter study. Tech Coloproctol 23, 545–550. DOI:
dc.description.abstractBackground: Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is a widely used therapeutic option for fecal incontinence (FI). Larger series are mainly from Western countries, while few reports address the results of SNM in less developed or less wealthy countries. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of SNM in patients with FI in Latin America. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with FI who had SNM between 2009 and 2016 at 15 specialized colorectal surgery centers in Latin America. Main outcomes measures were functional outcomes, postoperative complications, requirement of revisional surgery, and requirement of device removal. All patients had failed conservative management and had clinical assessment including recording of the validated Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (CCF-FIS) and, when available, anal manometry and endoanal ultrasound. Patients were followed up for a median of 36.7 (1–84) months. Results: One hundred and thirty-one patients [119 females, median age of 62.2 (range 19–87) years] were included. The most common etiology of FI was obstetric injury (n = 60; 45.8%). After successful test lead implantation, the stimulator was permanently placed in 129 patients (98.5%). One patient failed to respond in the test phase and one patient did not proceed to permanent implantation for insurance reasons. Nineteen patients (14.7%) had 19 complications including infection (n = 5, 3.8%), persistent implant site pain (n = 5, 3.8%), generator/lead dislodgment (n = 5, 3.8%), malfunctioning device (n = 3, 2.3%), and hematoma (n = 1, 0.7%). Reimplantation after the first and second stages was necessary in 2 (1.5%) and 3 patients (2.3%), respectively. The device removal rate was 2.2%. At a median follow-up of 36.7 (range 1–84) months, the CCF-FIS significantly improved from a preoperative baseline of 15.9 ± 2.98 to 5.2 ± 3.92 (95%CI: 15.46 vs 4.43; p < 0.0001). Overall, 90% of patients rated their improvement as “significant”. Conclusions: Sacral nerve stimulation for FI is safe and efficient, even in less wealthy or less developed countries. © 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.en_US
dc.publisherSpringer-Verlag Italiaen_US
dc.relation.ispartofREPOSITORIO SCRIPTA
dc.rightsAcceso embargado
dc.sourceTechniques in Coloproctology
dc.subjectDevice explanationen_US
dc.subjectFecal incontinenceen_US
dc.subjectLead explantationen_US
dc.subjectSacral neuromodulationen_US
dc.subjectCleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Scoreen_US
dc.subjectClinical assessmenten_US
dc.subjectConservative treatmenten_US
dc.subjectControlled studyen_US
dc.subjectDevice infectionen_US
dc.subjectDevice malfunctioningen_US
dc.subjectDevice removalen_US
dc.subjectFeces incontinenceen_US
dc.subjectGenerator dislodgmenten_US
dc.subjectHealth insuranceen_US
dc.subjectImplant site painen_US
dc.subjectLead dislodgmenten_US
dc.subjectMajor clinical studyen_US
dc.subjectMedical device complicationen_US
dc.subjectMulticenter studyen_US
dc.subjectPostoperative perioden_US
dc.subjectPreoperative perioden_US
dc.subjectQuality of lifeen_US
dc.subjectRetrospective studyen_US
dc.subjectSacral nerve stimulationen_US
dc.subjectScoring systemen_US
dc.subjectSouth and Central Americaen_US
dc.subjectTreatment outcomeen_US
dc.subjectClinical trialen_US
dc.subjectElectrode implanten_US
dc.subjectFeces incontinenceen_US
dc.subjectMiddle ageden_US
dc.subjectPostoperative complicationen_US
dc.subjectDevice removalen_US
dc.subjectElectric stimulation therapyen_US
dc.subjectElectrodes, implanteden_US
dc.subjectPostoperative complicationsen_US
dc.subject.classificationMEDICINA Y CIENCIAS DE LA SALUD
dc.subject.classificationCiencias de la Salud
dc.titleSacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence in Latin America : initial results of a multicenter studyen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationSultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI (1993) Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 329:1905–1911.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationDamon H, Henry L, Bretones S et al (2000) Postdelivery anal function in primiparous females: ultrasound and manometric study. Dis Colon Rectum 43:472–477.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationKaroui S, Savoye-Collet C, Koning E et al (1999) Prevalence of anal sphincter defects revealed by sonography in 335 incontinent patients and 115 continent patients. Am J Roentgenol 1173:389–392.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationDudding TC, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA (2008) Obstetric anal sphincter injury: incidence, risk factors, and management. Ann Surg 247(2):224–237.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationNg KS, Sivakumaran Y, Nassar N, Gladman MA (2015) Fecal Incontinence: community Prevalence and Associated Factors-A Systematic Review. Dis Colon Rectum 58(12):1194–1209.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBharucha AE, Zinsmeister AR, Locke GR et al (2006) Symptoms and quality of life in community women with fecal incontinence. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4:1004–1009.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJohanson JF, Lafferty J (1996) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol 91:33–36.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationSaldana Ruiz N, Kaiser AM (2017) Fecal incontinence—challenges and solutions. World J Gastroenterol 23(1):11–24.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationVan Koughnett JM, Wexner SD (2013) Current management of fecal incontinence: choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes. World J Gastroenterol 19(48):9216–9230.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationWexner SD (2015) Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in faecal incontinence. Lancet 386(10004):1605–1606.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationOliveira L, Pfeifer J, Wexner SD (1996) Physiological and clinical outcome of anterior sphincteroplasty. Br J Surg 83:1244–1251.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationRongen MJ, Uludag O, El Naggar K et al (2003) Long-term follow-up of dynamic graciloplasty for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 46:716–721.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMadoff RD, Baeten CG, Christiansen J et al (2000) Standards for anal sphincter replacement. Dis Colon Rectum 43:135–141.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJorge JMN, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36(1):77–97.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMatzel KE, Stadelmaier U, Hohenberger W (2004) Innovations in fecal incontinence: sacral nerve stimulation. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1720–1728.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationBoyle DJ, Knowles CH, Lunniss PJ et al (2009) Efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence in patients with anal sphincter defects. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1234–1239.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationAltomare DF, Giuratrabocchetta S, Knowles CH et al (2015) Long-term outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 102:407–415.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationHull T, Giese C, Wexner SD et al (2013) Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 56:234–245.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMellgren A, Wexner SD, Coller JA, SNS Study Group et al (2011) Long-term efficacy and safety of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1065–1075.
dcterms.bibliographicCitationDudding TC, Meng Lee E, Faiz O et al (2008) Economic evaluation of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 95:1155–1163.
dc.description.versionVersión aceptada

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record