ArticleTurkish journal of urology2021
Evaluation of progression from first to second stage sacral neuromodulation and unplanned device removal.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reprogramming Sacral Neuromodulation for Sub-Optimal Outcomes: Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2021Pooled it
- Factors Contributing to Sacral Neuromodulation Revision: A Single-Center Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Patient experience with sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence - a multi-centre, longitudinal cohort study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSacral neuromodulation (SNM) is an advanced treatment option for patients with refractory overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, urinary retention, and bowel disorders; it is usually performed in 2 separate procedures. This study aims to determine a cohort's progression rate from stage 1 to 2 and predict factors for progression and unplanned device removal or revision. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective review was conducted in patients who underwent SNM at a single institution between June 2012 and May 2019. Progression rates from stage 1 to 2, patient characteristics, and indications for unplanned SNM removal or revision were recorded. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher's exact tests were used for data analysis.
resultsA total of 128 patients underwent SNM for 1 or more of the following diagnoses: OAB (n=103), urinary retention (n=15), neurogenic bladder dysfunction (n=4), fecal incontinence (n=2), and constipation (n=4). The progression rate to stage 2 was 92.2% (118/128). Patients who failed to progress to stage 2 had additional diagnoses other than OAB, such as urinary retention or bowel disorders (p=0.007). Fifteen patients (12.7%) required SNM removal or revision within 4 years of surgery. Among these patients, the body mass index was significantly lower (p=0.036).
conclusionMost patients (92.2%) progressed to stage 2. Patients with only OAB symptoms had a higher progression rate to stage 2. Single full-stage procedures may be considered in select patients to reduce morbidity, time, and costs.
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.