ArticleCureus2024
A Five-Year Retrospective Study on the Clinical Outcomes of Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Neuromodulation of the Lower Urinary Tract in a Tertiary Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Identification of Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Sacral Nerve Stimulator Explantation: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
aimTo assess clinical outcomes in terms of first to second-stage conversion rates, revision rates, and complications for all patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation of the lower urinary tract for the past five years at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham.
methodThis is a retrospective observational study. Only patients with the first stage of sacral neuromodulation between January 2017 and January 2023 were included in the study. The data collected included age, type of first-stage trial, that is, percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) vs. tined lead, response after the first stage, whether a second trial was carried out, response after the second trial, indication for sacral nerve stimulation (SNS), complications, revisions, etc. Results: 94% of the total (198) patients had PNE at the first trial, while 11 (6%) had tined lead. 129 (65%) patients had a positive response after the first trial, 49 (24%) had a negative response, and 20 (10%) had an equivocal response. 15 (8%) patients from the equivocal and negative response group had a second trial with a tined lead, with 53.3% (104) receiving a positive response, making our total conversion rate 69% (136). 100 (50%) patients had permanent implants fitted, 25 (13%) had complications, and 15 (7.5%) required revision. The indications for the revisions were lead migration (66, 33.33%), pain around the battery site (66, 33.33%), connection failure (40, 20%), battery charging problem (13, 6.67%), and device infection (13, 6.67%).
conclusionThe conversion and complication rates are comparable to national standards and documentation in the literature, while the infection rates were lower. Higher conversion rates may be attained when tined lead is used at the first trial.
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.