ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Factors Contributing to Sacral Neuromodulation Revision: A Single-Center Study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSacral neuromodulation (SNM) is an effective therapy for non-neurogenic overactive bladder, non-obstructive urinary retention, and chronic fecal incontinence. Previous studies have shown SNM revision rates up to 39%, and the factors that predispose to revisions and complications remain incompletely understood. This study is aimed at characterizing reasons for SNM revision over an 18-month period to identify any potential predictors.
methodsThis is a retrospective chart review of patients following SNM implantation from 1 January 2021 to 17 May 2023 at a single academic center with five surgeons. Patient characteristics, procedural specifics, and reasons for revision were examined. Complications were defined as lead migration, infection, pain, or implantable pulse generator (IPG) issues.
resultsA total of 127 patients were included for a total of 135 operations. The overall revision rate was 22% (30 out of 135) with a 6.7% explantation rate (9 out of 135). Primary reasons for revision included lead migration (7), infection (3), pain (3), no efficacy (8), IPG malpositioning (3), or desire for an MRI-compatible device (7). Of patients who underwent revisions, patients with complications had a lower BMI at the time of revision (p = 0.05) and were older (p = 0.007) than patients without complications. There were no differences between genders, or with use of an antimicrobial envelope.
conclusionsThe overall revision rates were lower than those in the published literature. Based on changes in BMI between implantation and subsequent revision, weight loss and older age were associated with more complications that necessitated revision. Use of an antimicrobial envelope did not change complication rates. Surgeons should decide whether its use is warranted given the added cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41214286What 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.