ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics2016
Adverse events of sacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence reported to the federal drug administration.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripheral non-invasive focused ultrasound alleviates constipation by reducing gastrointestinal inflammation.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- Scaling beyond the vagus nerve: historical and contemporary progress on electrode-based small-diameter peripheral nerve interfaces.Bioelectronic medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy and mechanisms of neuromodulation in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.Bioelectronic medicine · 2025Review
- Sacral nerve stimulation effect on colonic motility in pediatric patients.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology Association · 2024Article
- Comparison of long-term outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for constipation and faecal incontinence with focus on explantation rate, additional visits, and patient satisfaction.Techniques in coloproctology · 2020Article
- Efficacy of Sphinkeeper™ implant in treating faecal incontinence.The British journal of surgery · 2020Observational
- Success and Complication Rates After Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence and Constipation: A Single-center Follow-up Study.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2019Article
- Disorders of gastrointestinal hypomotility.F1000Research · 2016Review
- Vagus Nerve Stimulation and Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of translational gastroenterologyArticle
- Pediatric gastrointestinal neuromodulation: A review.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the nature and severity of AE related to sacral neurostimulation (SNS).
methodsBased on Pubmed and Embase searches, we identified published trials and case series of SNS for fecal incontinence (FI) and extracted data on adverse events, requiring an active intervention. Those problems were operationally defined as infection, device removal explant or need for lead and/or generator replacement. In addition, we analyzed the Manufacturer and User Device Experience registry of the Federal Drug Administration for the months of August - October of 2015. Events were included if the report specifically mentioned gastrointestinal (GI), bowel and FI as indication and if the narrative did not focus on bladder symptoms. The classification, reporter, the date of the recorded complaint, time between initial implant and report, the type of AE, steps taken and outcome were extracted from the report. In cases of device removal or replacement, we looked for confirmatory comments by healthcare providers or the manufacturer.
resultsPublished studies reported adverse events and reoperation rates for 1954 patients, followed for 27 (1-117) mo. Reoperation rates were 18.6% (14.2-23.9) with device explants accounting for 10.0% (7.8-12.7) of secondary surgeries; rates of device replacement or explant or pocket site and electrode revisions increased with longer follow up. During the period examined, the FDA received 1684 reports of AE related to SNS with FI or GI listed as indication. A total of 652 reports met the inclusion criteria, with 52.7% specifically listing FI. Lack or loss of benefit (48.9%), pain or dysesthesia (27.8%) and complication at the generator implantation site (8.7%) were most commonly listed. Complaints led to secondary surgeries in 29.7% of the AE. Reoperations were performed to explant (38.2%) or replace (46.5%) the device or a lead, or revise the generator pocket (14.6%). Conservative management changes mostly involved changes in stimulation parameters (44.5%), which successfully addressed concerns in 35.2% of cases that included information about treatment results.
conclusionWith reoperation rates around 20%, physicians need to fully disclose the high likelihood of complications and secondary interventions and exhaust non-invasive treatments, including transcutaneous stimulation paradigms.
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.