ArticleSurgery today2014
Prospective clinical audit of two neuromodulatory treatments for fecal incontinence: sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS).
Article in Surgery today, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Tibial Nerve Electrostimulation in Patients With Fecal Incontinence: A Systematic Review.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026Pooled it
- Is percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) effective for fecal incontinence (FI) in adults compared with sham electrical stimulation? A meta-analysis.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Pooled it
- Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Faecal Incontinence-A UEG/ESCP/ESNM/ESPCG collaboration.United European gastroenterology journal · 2022Guideline
- Sacral nerve stimulation versus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Pooled it
- Evaluation of the anorectal motor response after percutaneous stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve in patients with fecal incontinence.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Article
- The short-term effects of posterior tibial nerve stimulation on anorectal physiology in patients with faecal incontinence: a single centre experience.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Cost-effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (pTNS): success rate and the role of rectal capacity.International journal of colorectal disease · 2017Observational
- Evidence-Based Update on Treatments of Fecal Incontinence in Women.Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America · 2016Review
- Pregnancy and postpartum bowel changes: constipation and fecal incontinence.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Impact of fecal incontinence and its treatment on quality of life in women.Women's health (London, England) · 2015Review
- Current and emerging treatment options for fecal incontinence.Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2014Review
- [Treatment of Fecal Incontinence: A Surgical Approach].Acta gastroenterologica LatinoamericanaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTwo 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsThirty-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.
conclusionGiven the lesser cost and invasive nature of PTNS, where both techniques are available, a trial of PTNS could be considered for all patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.