Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: medium-term follow-up from a single institution.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) are either single-centre with small numbers of patients or multi-centre studies. We present the medium-term follow-up results from a single centre for 127 patients undergoing SNS. METHODS: Consecutive patients treated with SNS for faecal incontinence had preoperative baseline St Mark's continence scores, faecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) measures and anorectal physiology studies. Follow-up was a postal questionnaire concerning continence, FIQL, patient-perceived change in bowel control (-5 to +5 where 0 is no change), overall satisfaction (0-10 visual analogue scale) and use of medications. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients underwent temporary nerve stimulation testing, of which 112 progressed to a permanent implantable pulse generator (IPG). Fifteen received an IPG without the testing phase, hence 127 patients in total. Fourteen had the IPG removed, four were deceased, leaving 109 for assessment; 91 (83%) responded to the survey. Mean follow-up was 2.7 years (range: 2 months-8.5 years). Mean baseline St Mark's continence score was 14.4, and mean follow-up score was 10.3 (P < 0.01). FIQL improved in all domains (P < 0.001). Patient-reported improved bowel control mean score was +3.2 (95% CI: 2.9, 3.55). Median satisfaction score was 8.0 (range: 0-10). Complications included 17 lead dislodgements, seven superficial infections, five infections requiring surgery and five repositioning of a rotated IPG. Thirty-two patients used loperamide and 34 used fibre supplements. CONCLUSION: In this observational study, limited by the absence of a placebo control group, SNS significantly improved continence and quality of life, and patient satisfaction was high.

Sacral Nerve Stimulation Fails to Offer Long-term Benefit in Patients With Slow-Transit Constipation.

BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation is proposed as a treatment for slow-transit constipation. However, in our randomized controlled trial we found no therapeutic benefit over sham stimulation. These patients have now been followed-up over a long-term period. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in patients with scintigraphically confirmed slow-transit constipation. DESIGN: This study was designed for long-term follow-up of patients after completion of a randomized controlled trial. SETTINGS: It was conducted at an academic tertiary public hospital in Sydney. PATIENTS: Adults with slow-transit constipation were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At the 1- and 2-year postrandomized controlled trial, the primary treatment outcome measure was the proportion of patients who reported a feeling of complete evacuation on >2 days per week for ≥2 of 3 weeks during stool diary assessment. Secondary outcome was demonstration of improved colonic transit at 1 year. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients entered long-term follow-up, and 1 patient died. Patient dissatisfaction or serious adverse events resulted in 44 patients withdrawing from the study because of treatment failure by the end of the second year. At 1 and 2 years, 10 (OR = 18.8% (95% CI, 8.3% to 29.3%)) and 3 patients (OR = 5.7% (95% CI, -0.5% to 11.9%)) met the primary outcome measure. Colonic isotope retention at 72 hours did not differ between baseline (OR = 75.6% (95% CI, 65.7%-85.6%)) and 1-year follow-up (OR = 61.7% (95% CI, 47.8%-75.6%)). LIMITATIONS: This study only assessed patients with slow-transit constipation. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with slow-transit constipation, sacral nerve stimulation was not an effective treatment.

Treatment efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation in slow transit constipation: a two-phase, double-blind randomized controlled crossover study.

OBJECTIVES: Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a potential treatment for constipation refractory to standard therapies. However, there have been no randomized controlled studies examining its efficacy. In patients with slow transit constipation, we evaluated the efficacy of suprasensory and subsensory SNS compared with sham, in a prospective, 18-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-phase crossover study. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients who, on more than 2 days/week for at least 2 of 3 weeks, reported a bowel movement associated with a feeling of complete evacuation. METHODS: After 3 weeks of temporary peripheral nerve evaluation (PNE), all patients had permanent implantation and were randomized to subsensory/sham (3 weeks each) and then re-randomized to suprasensory/sham (3 weeks each) with a 2-week washout period between each arm. Daily stool dairies were kept, and quality of life (QoL; SF36) was measured at the end of each arm. RESULTS: Between November 2006 and March 2012, 234 constipated patients were assessed, of whom 59 were willing and deemed eligible to participate (4 male; median age 42 years). Of the 59 patients, 16 (28%) responded to PNE. Fifty-five patients went on to permanent SNS implantation. The proportion of patients satisfying the primary outcome measure did not differ between suprasensory (30%) and sham (21%) stimulations, nor between subsensory (25%) and sham (25%) stimulations. There were no significant changes in QoL scores. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory slow transit constipation, SNS did not improve the frequency of complete bowel movements over the 3-week active period.

Clinical outcome and efficacy of antegrade colonic enemas administered via an indwelling cecostomy catheter in adults with defecatory disorders.

BACKGROUND: Antegrade colonic enemas are used in selected adult patients with defecatory disorders. Conduit stenosis requiring revisional surgery is common. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine whether stenosis could be avoided by using an indwelling antegrade continence enema catheter in an appendiceal or cecal conduit, and to describe medium-term clinical outcomes. DESIGN: This study was a retrospective case series. SETTING: The study was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. PATIENTS: Adults administering antegrade colonic enemas to manage defecatory disorders were selected for the study. METHODS: Patients with an indwelling antegrade continence enema catheter completed a face-to-face survey when they attended the clinic for catheter change. A postal survey was sent to nonattenders, and, if it was not returned, the patient was contacted, and the survey was completed by telephone. The survey asked about irrigation techniques, satisfaction, confidence to manage, and continence, using quantitative scores. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients (45 female; mean age, 49 years) had constipation (n = 31), incontinence (n = 6), both incontinence and constipation (n = 2) or obstructed defecation due to gracilis neosphincter (n = 5), congenital anomalies (n = 8), or spinal injuries (n = 2). Thirty-five patients (65%) continued to irrigate for a mean follow-up of 5.5 years (range, 4 months to 13.7 years). Mean enema volume was 1178 mL (95% CI, 998-1357; range, 350-2000 mL), and half the patients added a stimulant to the irrigation. Mean total toileting time was 59 minutes (95% CI, 48-66; range, 15-120 minutes). Twenty-one patients had incontinence between irrigations, and in 17% incontinence was severe (St. Mark score >12). Satisfaction (visual analogue scale = 8.1) and confidence to partake in social activities (visual analogue scale = 8.2) and all-day activities (visual analogue scale = 7.1) were high. Complications included superficial wound infection (n = 15), wound infection requiring surgery (n = 6), paraconduit hernia (n = 2), and indwelling antegrade continence enema catheter dislodgement (n = 33). There was no conduit track stenosis. LIMITATIONS: The study is a medium-term retrospective case series using patient-reported outcomes and clinical records without a control group. CONCLUSIONS: With the use of the indwelling antegrade continence enema catheter, appendicostomy and cecostomy stenosis requiring revisional surgery was avoided. Antegrade colonic irrigation failed in about one-third of cases; in the 65% who continued to irrigate, satisfactory functional outcome was achieved.

Inverse expression of prostaglandin E2-related enzymes highlights differences between diverticulitis and inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) is the dominant prostaglandin in the colon and is associated with colonic inflammation. PGE2 levels are regulated not only by cyclooxygenases (COX-1 and COX-2) but also by 15-hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenase (15-PGDH), the major PGE2-degrading enzyme. Information about the involvement of 15-PGDH in colonic inflammation is sparse. AIM: We thus aimed to determine the gene expression and immunoreactivity (IR) of COX-1, COX-2, and 15-PGDH in colonic mucosa from patients with diverse inflammatory disorders: ulcerative colitis (UC), Crohn's disease (CD), and acute diverticular disease (DD). METHODS: RNA from human colonic mucosa was extracted and assessed for gene expression by real-time PCR. Intact colon sections were processed for immunohistochemistry with immunostaining of the mucosal areas quantified using ImageJ. RESULTS: In colonic mucosa of both UC and CD, COX-2 mRNA and COX-2-IR were significantly increased, whereas 15-PGDH mRNA and 15-PGDH-IR were significantly reduced. In macroscopically undamaged acute DD mucosa, the opposite findings were seen: for both gene expression and immunoreactivity, there was a significant downregulation of COX-2 and upregulation of 15-PGDH. COX-1 mRNA and COX-1-IR remained unchanged in all diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Our study for the first time demonstrated differential expression of the PGE2-related enzymes COX-2 and 15-PGDH in colonic mucosa from UC, CD, and acute DD. The reduction of 15-PGDH in IBD provides an additional mechanism for PGE2 increase in IBD. With respect to DD, alterations of PGE2-related enzymes suggest that a low PGE2 level may precede the onset of inflammation, thus providing new insight into the pathogenesis of DD.