Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38357189›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence.

Alexander O'Connor, Elizabeth Reynolds, Clare Molyneux, Dipesh H Vasant, Abhiram Sharma, Gemma Faulkner, John McLaughlin, Edward Kiff, Karen Telford

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effects of Tibial Nerve Electrostimulation in Patients With Fecal Incontinence: A Systematic Review.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander O'Connor *Department of Colorectal Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Reynolds *Department of Colorectal Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Clare MolyneuxDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Dipesh H VasantNeurogastroenterology Unit, Gastroenterology, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Abhiram SharmaDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Gemma FaulknerDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
John McLaughlinDivision of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Gastroenterology, The University of Manchester and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Edward KiffDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Karen TelfordDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBWythenshawe Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Faecal incontinence (FI) is a common condition with a significant impact on quality of life (QoL). Neuromodulation treatments delivered by members of the multidisciplinary team including sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) are options for FI refractory to conservative management. The aim of this study was to assess whether a successful treatment with one neuromodulation modality corresponds with success in the other. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively managed neuromodulation database identified 15 patients who had undergone both PTNS and SNS. The definition of success of each treatment was a >50% improvement in any of The St. Mark's Incontinence Score, Manchester Health Questionnaire, or weekly faecal urgency or FI episodes. Results: Complete data from 12 patients was available for assessment and PTNS was delivered as the first treatment in nine patients. Overall, seven patients (58%) had successful PTNS treatment, with 10 (83%) having a successful SNS trials. Of the seven patients who had successful PTNS treatment, six patients (85.4%) went on to have success with SNS. Of the five patients who failed PTNS, four (80%) went on to have SNS success. Five (71%) of those who had positive PTNS outcomes had permanent SNS implantation as their final treatment decision. Conclusion: This study suggests that there is no clear relationship between successful PTNS treatment and an SNS trial period which may be explained by differing mechanisms of action or the potential placebo effect of PTNS. Further work is required to investigate any association in larger studies to inform clinical practice.

Indexed as

faecal incontinencemultidisciplinary carepercutaneous tibial nerve stimulationsacral nerve stimulationsacral neuromodulation

Identifiers

PMID38357189
PMCPMC10864541
OpenAlexW4391397402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.