Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34264542›Full record

SynthesisNeuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society2021

Reprogramming Sacral Neuromodulation for Sub-Optimal Outcomes: Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice.

Thomas C Dudding, Paul A Lehur, Michael Sørensen, Stefan Engelberg, Maria Paola Bertapelle, Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler, Karel Everaert, Philip Van Kerrebroeck, Charles H Knowles, Lilli Lundby and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Thomas C DuddingPelvic Floor Unit, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9883-6700
Paul A LehurColoproctology Unit, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8943-7062
Michael SørensenDepartment of Surgical and Medical Gastroenterology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark.
Stefan EngelbergMedtronic Intl Sarl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5903-1037
Maria Paola BertapelleNeurourology Maria Adelaide Hospital, Azienda Ospedaliera Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Emmanuel Chartier-KastlerDepartment of Urology, Sorbonne Université, Academic Hospital Pitié-Salpétrière, Paris, France.
Karel EveraertDepartment of Urology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7173-2039
Philip Van KerrebroeckPelvic Care Centre Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Charles H KnowlesCentre for Neuroscience, Surgery & Trauma, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London & Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Lilli LundbyPelvic Floor Unit, Department of Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Klaus E MatzelChirurgische Klinik, Sektion Koloproktologie, Universität Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Arantxa Muñoz-DuyosColoproctology Unit, Hospital Universitari Mutua Terrassa, University of Barcelona, Terrassa, Spain.
Mona B RydningenNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Incontinence and Pelvic Floor Health, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Stefan de WachterDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University Hospital Antwerpen, University Antwerpen, Edegem, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn some patients treated for urinary or fecal incontinence with sacral neuromodulation (SNM) persistence of symptoms, a reduction in efficacy or adverse effects of stimulation can occur. In such situations, further programming of the SNM device can help resolve problems. Infrequently hardware failure is detected. This article aims to provide practical guidance to solve sub-optimal outcomes (troubleshooting) occurring in the course of SNM therapy. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature review was performed. Collective clinical experience from an expert multidisciplinary group was used to form opinion where evidence was lacking.

resultsCircumstances in which reprogramming is required are described. Actions to undertake include changes of electrode configuration, stimulation amplitude, pulse frequency, and pulse width. Guidance in case of loss of efficacy and adverse effects of stimulation, developed by a group of European experts, is presented. In addition, various hardware failure scenarios and their management are described.

conclusionsReprogramming aims to further improve patient symptoms or ensure a comfortable delivery of the therapy. Initial changes of electrode configuration and adjustment of stimulation parameters can be performed at home to avoid unnecessary hospital visits. A logical and stepwise approach to reprogramming can improve the outcome of therapy and restore patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

Electric Stimulation TherapyFecal IncontinenceHumansLumbosacral PlexusPatient SatisfactionSacrumTreatment OutcomeFecal incontinencereprogrammingsacral neuromodulationtroubleshootingurinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID34264542
PMCPMC9291141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.