Intraoperative Predictors of Sacral Neuromodulation Implantation and Treatment Response: Results From the ROSETTA Trial.

PURPOSE: We determined the utility of intraoperative data in predicting sacral neuromodulation outcomes in urgency urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intraoperative details of sacral neuromodulation stage 1 were recorded during the prospective, randomized, multicenter ROSETTA trial, including responsive electrodes, amplitudes, and response strengths (motor and sensory Likert scales). Stage 2 implant was performed for stage 1 success on 3-day diary with 24-month follow-up. An intraoperative amplitude response score for each electrode was calculated ranging from 0 (no response) to 99.5 (maximum response, 0.5 V). Predictors for stage 1 success and improvement at 24 months were identified by stepwise logistic regression confirmed with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and stepwise linear regression. RESULTS: Intraoperative data from 161 women showed 139 (86%) had stage 1 success, which was not associated with number of electrodes generating an intraoperative motor and/or sensory response, average amplitude at responsive electrodes, or minimum amplitude-producing responses. However, relative to other electrodes, a best amplitude response score for bellows at electrode 3 was associated with stage 1 failure, a lower reduction in daily urgency urinary incontinence episodes during stage 1, and most strongly predicted stage 1 outcome in logistic modeling. At 24 months, those who had electrode 3 intraoperative sensory response had lower mean reduction in daily urgency urinary incontinence episodes than those who had no response. CONCLUSIONS: Specific parameters routinely assessed intraoperatively during stage 1 sacral neuromodulation for urgency urinary incontinence show limited utility in predicting both acute and long-term outcomes. However, lead position as it relates to the trajectory of the sacral nerve root appears to be important.

Characteristics associated with subjective and objective measures of treatment success in women undergoing percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation vs sham for accidental bowel leakage.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In randomized trials both percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and sham result in clinically significant improvements in accidental bowel leakage (ABL). We aimed to identify subgroups who may preferentially benefit from PTNS in women enrolled in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: This planned secondary analysis explored factors associated with success for PTNS vs sham using various definitions: treatment responder using three cutoff points for St. Mark's score (≥3-, ≥4-, and ≥5-point reduction); Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) of ≥ much better; and ≥50% reduction in fecal incontinence episodes (FIEs). Backward logistic regression models were generated using elements with significance of p<0.2 for each definition and interaction terms assessed differential effects of PTNS vs sham. RESULTS: Of 166 women randomized, 160 provided data for at least one success definition. Overall, success rates were 65% (102 out of 158), 57% (90 out of 158), and 46% (73 out of 158) for ≥3-, ≥4-, and ≥5-point St Mark's reduction respectively; 43% (68 out of 157) for PGI-I; and 48% (70 out of 145) for ≥50% FIEs. Of those providing data for all definitions of success, 77% (109 out of 142) met one success criterion, 43% (61 out of 142) two, and 29% (41 out of 142) all three success criteria. No reliable or consistent factors were associated with improved outcomes with PTNS over sham regardless of definition. CONCLUSIONS: Despite exploring diverse success outcomes, no subgroups of women with ABL differentially responded to PTNS over sham. Success results varied widely across subjective and objective definitions. Further investigation of ABL treatment success definitions that consistently and accurately capture patient symptom burden and improvement are needed.

Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation vs Sham Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence in Women: NeurOmodulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: To determine whether percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is superior to sham stimulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI) in women refractory to first-line treatments. METHODS: Women aged 18 years or older with ≥3 months of moderate-to-severe FI that persisted after a 4-week run-in phase were randomized 2:1 (PTNS:sham stimulation) to 12 weekly 30-minute sessions in this multicenter, single-masked, controlled superiority trial. The primary outcome was change from baseline FI severity measured by St. Mark score after 12 weeks of treatment (range 0-24; minimal important difference, 3-5 points). The secondary outcomes included electronic bowel diary events and quality of life. The groups were compared using an adjusted general linear mixed model. RESULTS: Of 199 women who entered the run-in period, 166 (of 170 eligible) were randomized, (111 in PTNS group and 55 in sham group); the mean (SD) age was 63.6 (11.6) years; baseline St. Mark score was 17.4 (2.7); and recording was 6.6 (5.5) FI episodes per week. There was no difference in improvement from baseline in St. Mark scores in the PTNS group when compared with the sham group (-5.3 vs -3.9 points, adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.3 [-2.8 to 0.2]). The groups did not differ in reduction in weekly FI episodes (-2.1 vs -1.9 episodes, adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -0.26 [-1.85 to 1.33]). Condition-specific quality of life measures did not indicate a benefit of PTNS over sham stimulation. Serious adverse events occurred in 4% of each group. DISCUSSION: Although symptom reduction after 12 weeks of PTNS met a threshold of clinical importance, it did not differ from sham stimulation. These data do not support the use of PTNS as conducted for the treatment of FI in women.

Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Fecal Incontinence in Women: The NeurOmodulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage Study.

OBJECTIVES: High-level evidence for second-line noninvasive treatments for fecal incontinence in women is limited. We present the rationale for and design of the NeuromOdulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage trial, a randomized controlled trial of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and validated sham stimulation in women with refractory accidental bowel leakage. METHODS: The rationale and goals for a 2-part study with a run-in phase, use of a generic pulse generator for PTNS and sham stimulation, masking, participant inclusion, primary and secondary outcome measures, and adverse event collection are described. A superiority design will be used to compare change from baseline in St. Mark's score after 12 weekly stimulation sessions between PTNS and sham. Responders to initial treatment (PTNS or sham) will be assigned to scheduled or "as needed" intervention for up to 1 year. Secondary outcome measures include incontinence episodes and other bowel events recorded in a 14-day electronic bowel diary, general and condition-specific quality of life instruments, adaptive behavior, global impression of improvement, symptom control, and sexual function. RESULTS: Sample size calculations determined that 165 participants (110 PTNS and 55 sham) would provide 90% power to detect greater than or equal to 4-point difference between PTNS and sham in change from baseline in St. Mark's score at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The methods for the NeuromOdulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage trial will provide high-level evidence of the effectiveness and optimal maintenance therapy schedule of a low-cost PTNS protocol in community-dwelling women seeking second-line intervention for refractory accidental bowel leakage.

Impact of treatment for fecal incontinence on constipation symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Defecatory symptoms, such as a sense of incomplete emptying and straining with bowel movements, are paradoxically present in women with fecal incontinence. Treatments for fecal incontinence, such as loperamide and biofeedback, can worsen or improve defecatory symptoms, respectively. The primary aim of this study was to compare changes in constipation symptoms in women undergoing treatment for fecal incontinence with education only, loperamide, anal muscle exercises with biofeedback or both loperamide and biofeedback. Our secondary aim was to compare changes in constipation symptoms among responders and nonresponders to fecal incontinence treatment. STUDY DESIGN: This was a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing 2 first-line therapies for fecal incontinence in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Women with at least monthly fecal incontinence and normal stool consistency were randomized to 4 groups: (1) oral placebo plus education only, (2) oral loperamide plus education only, (3) placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and (4) loperamide plus biofeedback. Defecatory symptoms were measured using the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms questionnaire at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms consists of 12 items that contribute to a global score and 3 subscales: stool characteristics/symptoms (hardness of stool, size of stool, straining, inability to pass stool), rectal symptoms (burning, pain, bleeding, incomplete bowel movement), and abdominal symptoms (discomfort, pain, bloating, cramps). Scores for each subscale as well as the global score range from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (maximum score), with negative change scores representing improvement in defecatory symptoms. Responders to fecal incontinence treatment were defined as women with a minimally important clinical improvement of ≥5 points on the St Mark's (Vaizey) scale between baseline and 24 weeks. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed using a longitudinal mixed model, controlling for baseline scores, to estimate changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores from baseline through 24 weeks. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, there were small changes in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms global scores in all 4 groups: oral placebo plus education (-0.3; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.1), loperamide plus education (-0.1, 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to0.0), oral placebo plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2), and loperamide plus biofeedback (-0.3, 95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -0.2). No differences were observed in change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores between women randomized to placebo plus education and those randomized to loperamide plus education (P = .17) or placebo plus biofeedback (P = .82). Change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores in women randomized to combination loperamide plus biofeedback therapy was not different from that of women randomized to treatment with loperamide or biofeedback alone. Responders had greater improvement in Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms scores than nonresponders (-0.4; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to -0.3 vs -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to -0.0, P < .01, mean difference, 0.2, 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.4). CONCLUSION: Change in constipation symptoms following treatment of fecal incontinence in women are small and are not significantly different between groups. Loperamide treatment for fecal incontinence does not worsen constipation symptoms among women with normal consistency stool. Women with clinically significant improvement in fecal incontinence symptoms report greater improvement in constipation symptoms.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacral Neuromodulation versus OnabotulinumtoxinA for Refractory Urgency Urinary Incontinence: Results of the ROSETTA Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Sacral neuromodulation and intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injection are therapies for refractory urgency urinary incontinence. Sacral neuromodulation involves surgical implantation of a device that can last 4 to 6 years while onabotulinumtoxinA therapy involves serial office injections. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of 2-stage implantation sacral neuromodulation vs 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of urgency urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective economic evaluation was performed concurrent with the ROSETTA (Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment) randomized trial of 386 women with 6 or more urgency urinary incontinence episodes on a 3-day diary. Analysis is from the health care system perspective with primary within-trial analysis for 2 years and secondary 5-year decision analysis. Costs are in 2018 U.S. dollars. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) and reductions in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day. We generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Two-year costs were higher for sacral neuromodulation than for onabotulinumtoxinA ($35,680 [95% CI 33,920-37,440] vs $7,460 [95% CI 5,780-9,150], p <0.01), persisting through 5 years ($36,550 [95% CI 34,787-38,309] vs $12,020 [95% CI 10,330-13,700], p <0.01). At 2 years there were no differences in mean reduction in urgency urinary incontinence episodes per day (-3.00 [95% CI -3.38 - -2.62] vs -3.12 [95% CI -3.48 - -2.76], p=0.66) or QALYs (1.39 [95% CI 1.34-1.44] vs 1.41 [95% CI 1.36-1.45], p=0.60). The probability that sacral neuromodulation is cost-effective relative to onabotulinumtoxinA is less than 0.025 for all willingness to pay values below $580,000 per QALY at 2 years and $204,000 per QALY at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Although both treatments were effective, the high cost of sacral neuromodulation is not good value for treating urgency urinary incontinence compared to 200 units onabotulinumtoxinA.

Sacral neuromodulation versus onabotulinumtoxinA for refractory urgency urinary incontinence: impact on fecal incontinence symptoms and sexual function.

BACKGROUND: Women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence can be treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or sacral neuromodulation. Little data exists on the comparative effects of treatment of refractory urgency urinary incontinence on other pelvic floor complaints, such as bowel and sexual function. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the impact of these treatments on fecal incontinence and sexual symptoms. METHODS: This was a planned supplemental analysis of a randomized trial in women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 190) or sacral neuromodulation (n = 174). Fecal incontinence and sexual symptoms were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months. Fecal incontinence symptoms were measured using the St Mark's (Vaizey) Fecal Incontinence severity scale. Sexual symptoms were measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR). The PISQ-IR allows measurement of sexual symptoms in both sexually active and non-sexually active adults. Primary outcomes were change in Vaizey and PISQ-12 scores between baseline and 6 months. Secondary outcomes were change in PISQ-IR total and subscores between baseline and 6 months and change in Vaizey, PISQ-12, and PISQ-IR scores between baseline and 12 and 24 months. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed using repeated measures mixed model to estimate change in all parameters from baseline while adjusting for the baseline score. A subgroup analysis of women with clinically significant bowel symptoms was conducted based on baseline Vaizey score of ≥12. RESULTS: At baseline, mean Vaizey scores were indicative of mild fecal incontinence symptoms and were not different between onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation groups (7.6 ± 5.3 vs 6.6 ± 4.9, P = .07). The proportion of sexually active women (56% vs 63%, P = .25), mean PISQ-12 score (33.4 ± 7.5 vs 32.7 ± 6.7, P = .55), or PISQ-IR subscores were also not different between the onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation groups at baseline. There was no difference between women treated with onabotulinumtoxinA and those treated with sacral neuromodulation at 6 months in terms of improvement in fecal incontinence symptom score (Vaizey: -1.9, 95% confidence interval -2.6 to -1.2 vs -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.2, P = .07) or sexual symptoms score (PISQ-12: 2.2, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.7 vs 2.2, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.7, P = .99). There was no difference in improvement between groups in the sexual symptom subscores in sexually active and non-sexually active women at 6 months. Similar findings were noted at 12 and 24 months. In a subgroup (onabotulinumtoxinA = 33 and sacral neuromodulation = 22) with clinically significant fecal incontinence at baseline (Vaizey score ≥12), there was a clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms in both groups from baseline to 6 months, with no difference in improvement between the onabotulinumtoxinA and sacral neuromodulation groups (-5.1, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -2.8 vs -5.6, 95% confidence interval -8.5 to -2.6, P = .8). CONCLUSION: There were no differences in improvement of fecal incontinence and sexual symptoms in women with urgency urinary incontinence treated with onabotulinumtoxinA or sacral neuromodulation. Women with significant fecal incontinence symptoms at baseline had clinically important improvement in symptoms, with no difference between the treatments. Our findings can help clinicians counseling women considering treatment for refractory urgency urinary incontinence.

Incidence of Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries After Training to Protect the Perineum.

OBJECTIVES: Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASISs) are a devastating postpartum complication; reducing rates is paramount to improving quality of care. In Norway, implementation of a perineal protection program decreased the incidence of OASIS by 48%. We sought to assess impact on OASIS rates following a similar program. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved, retrospective cohort study was performed in an academic hospital system. The periods of analysis were November 2014 through October 2015 for the preintervention arm and November 2015 through October 2016 for the postintervention arm. From November 2 to 6, 2015, 2 Norwegian experts conducted a didactic and hands-on, on-site workshop focusing on perineal protection. The experts were then present on labor and delivery wards to reinforce perineal protection in live deliveries. Teachings were emphasized at departmental meetings for the remainder of the year. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and manually audited. RESULTS: The rate of vaginal delivery was similar among both periods (6504 and 6650; P = 0.059). Obstetric anal sphincter injury rates decreased from 211 (3.2%) preintervention to 189 (2.8%) after the workshop. Although this represented 32 fewer injuries, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.179). Obstetric anal sphincter injuries following forceps-assisted deliveries did decline significantly from 103 (28%) to 81 (21%) (P = 0.014). In addition, incidence of fourth-degree lacerations during resident deliveries decreased significantly from 10 (0.6%) to 3 (0.2%) (P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: An educational workshop focusing on perineal support was not associated with a significant reduction in overall OASIS rates. Nevertheless, decreased forceps-related OASIS and fourth-degree lacerations rates support positive influence of the intervention.