ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2019
[Sacral neuromodulation in under- and overactive detrusor-quo vadis? : Principles and developments].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSacral neuromodulation (SNM) has been used in the treatment of refractory overactive bladder syndrome, nonobstructive urinary retention and faecal incontinence for almost 40 years now. It is not to be confused with the sacral anterior root stimulation which is exclusively used for bladder dysfunction due to spinal paraplegia. MECHANISM OF ACTION: The principles of SNM are yet to be fully understood. Nevertheless, there is proof of modulating the activity of several micturition-associated, afferent neurons in the spine, brainstem and cerebrum. Thus, premature detrusor contractions are suppressed, the desire to void is delayed and detrusor-sphincter coordination improves. TECHNIQUES OF IMPLANTATION AND STIMULATION: Motor reactions are an important indicator of correct electrode placement. The implantation procedure consists of two stages with an initial trial phase to determine the best possible treatment response through an external generator before implanting the whole stimulating device. Yearly check-up examinations are recommended; wireless adjustments allow for long-lasting symptom reduction. INDICATION AND OUTCOME: Success rates in the treatment of the refractory overactive bladder syndrome and the non-obstructive urinary retention lie above 70% and can still be perceived as sufficient after 5 years of ongoing SNM therapy. There is also profound evidence of SNM being an effective option for patients with faecal incontinence or chronic obstipation. CONTRAINDICATIONS AND RISKS: Children, pregnant women and patients in need of frequent MRI examinations are usually not eligible for SNM therapy. Infection of the implant, technical failure (including lead displacement and battery depletion) and pain in the implantation site are important adverse effects which might require surgical revision.
conclusionsThe indications for SNM in the German health care system can be expected to be expanded upon the chronic pelvic pain syndrome, erectile dysfunction and additional gastrointestinal conditions. Technical progress will continue to improve the risk-benefit ratio of SNM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31139864What 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.