ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Do you really want to deactivate your sacral neuromodulation device during pregnancy? A single center case series.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurostimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain during Pregnancy: Implications for Child and Mother Safety.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Sacral Neuromodulation in Pregnant Women-A Case Report and Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe main objective of the study is to assess the efficacy and safety of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) during pregnancy.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent SNM implantation in our center and subsequently became pregnant. The indication for SNM, timing of device de-activation (if performed), course of pregnancy and urological complications, duration of labor, childbirth term, delivery mode, congenital abnormalities and SNM dysfunctions after delivery were recorded.
resultsFourteen pregnancies were recorded among 11 women undergoing SNM. Indications for device implantation were urinary retention (7 cases) and dysfunctional voiding (4 cases). Two patients carried on two and three pregnancies, respectively, with the device turned off since the first trimester. They both had to return to self-catheterization and developed recurring urinary tract infections. No major urological complications were recorded among the remaining nine women that kept the device on during pregnancy. A cesarean section was performed in four cases for obstetric reasons, and in seven cases it was planned by the urologist and gynecologist to avoid lead damage/displacement. Three pregnancies resulted in a vaginal delivery, and no association with term of delivery or duration of labor was observed. No congenital abnormalities related to SNM or lead displacement are reported, and only one patient required device removal because of significant loss of efficacy after childbirth.
conclusionsThe use of SNM during pregnancy appears to be safe, without morbidity for the fetus. Moreover, risks associated with switching the device off may be greater than benefits and justify maintaining the electrical stimulation throughout pregnancy.
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.