Long-term results of sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of anorectal diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) aims to improve anorectal function in patients with disorders of anal continence and rectal emptying. The mechanism of action of SNM is not well known, and its indications are still under evaluation. We report the functional results and morbidity of a prospective cohort treated between 2002 and 2019. RESULTS: A total of 284 patients (of 423 tested) had implantation of a SNM. Five patients (1.8%) were lost to follow-up. Among those who had implantation, the indications for SNM were anal incontinence (n=376), refractory constipation (n=17), anterior resection syndrome (n=13), solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (n=7), and chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (n=10). The morbidity rate was 2.7% (Dindo-Clavien>2), 33 patients (11%) required explantation for infection (n=5), pain (n=2), inefficacy (n=24) or other reasons (rectal cancer) (n=3). It was necessary to change the stimulator in 68 patients (24%) during the follow-up period. Regarding the group of patients with anal incontinence, functional results showed improvement of the incontinence score in 40% and of quality of life in 25% after a mean follow-up of 55months. CONCLUSION: SNM constitutes a mini-invasive treatment associated with low morbidity. Its' efficacy in anal incontinence makes it a priority approach. Other indications are still under evaluation; while results are promising, they are highly variable.

Sacral nerve modulation for faecal incontinence: influence of age on outcomes and complications. A multicentre study.

AIM: Faecal incontinence is frequent in the elderly. Little is currently known about the efficacy of sacral nerve modulation (SNM) in the elderly. The present study aimed to assess the impact of age on the outcome of SNM and on the surgical revision and explantation rates by comparing the results of a large data set of patients. METHOD: Prospectively collected data from patients who underwent an implant procedure between January 2010 and December 2015 in seven French centres were retrospectively evaluated. In total, 352 patients [321 women; median age (range): 63 (24-86) years] were included. Clinically favourable and unfavourable outcomes, and surgical revision and explantation rates, were compared according to the age of the patients. RESULTS: A similar outcome was observed when comparing patients < 70 years and ≥ 70 years (a favourable outcome in 79.2% and 76.2%, respectively, P = 0.89). The probability of a successful treatment as a function of time was similar for the two age groups (< 70 years and ≥ 70 years, P = 0.54). The explantation and revision rates were not influenced by age (explantation rate: 17% in patients < 70 years vs 14% in patients ≥ 70 years, P = 0.89; and revision rate: 42% in patients < 70 years vs 40% in patients ≥ 70 years, P = 0.89). The probability of explantation as a function of time was similar for the two age groups (P = 0.82). The limitations of this study were its retrospective status, the rate of loss at follow-up and different durations of patient follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that patients ≥ 70 years suffering from faecal incontinence benefit from SNM with a similar risk as a younger population.

Sacral nerve stimulation can alleviate symptoms of bowel dysfunction after colorectal resections.

AIM: Poor functional results, such as faecal incontinence (FI), low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) or high stool frequency, can occur after colorectal resections, including proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), rectal resection and left hemicolectomy. Management of such patients is problematic, and some case reports have demonstrated the effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in these situations. Our aim was to analyse the effectiveness of SNS on poor functional results and on quality of life in patients after treatment with different types of colorectal resection. METHOD: At five university hospitals from 2006 to 2014, patients with poor functional results after rectal resection, IPAA or left hemicolectomy underwent a staged SNS implant procedure. Failure was defined by the absence or insufficient improvement (< 50%) of FI episodes. RESULTS: SNS for bowel dysfunction was performed in 16 patients after rectal resection with coloanal anastomosis, left hemicolectomy with colorectal anastomosis or IPAA. Two (13%) cases of primary failure were observed after the percutaneous stimulation test. Median frequency of stool, FI episodes and urgency were significantly improved in 14 patients. Wexner and LARS scores were also significantly improved for 14 patients. When we compared results according to the type of colorectal surgery (IPAA, rectal resection or left hemicolectomy), median frequencies of stool and urgency, Wexner and LARS scores were still significantly improved. Overall success rate was 75% (12/16 patients) in intention-to-treat analysis and 86% (12/14 patients with permanent electrode) in per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: SNS seems to improve bowel dysfunction following rectal resection, left hemicolectomy or IPAA.

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation vs sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: a comparative case-matched study.

AIM: The study assessed the initial experience with posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) for faecal incontinence and compared it with sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) performed in a single centre during the same timespan. METHOD: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database was conducted at the colorectal unit, University Hospital, Nantes, France, from May 2009 to December 2010. Seventy-eight patients diagnosed with chronic severe faecal incontinence underwent neurostimulation including PTNS in 21 and SNS in 57. The main outcome measures were faecal incontinence (Wexner score) and quality of life (Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life, FIQL) scores in a short-term follow-up. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in patients' characteristics. Of 57 patients having SNS, 18 (32%) failed peripheral nerve evaluation and 39 (68%) received a permanent implant. Two (5%) developed a wound infection. No adverse effects were recorded in the PTNS group. There was no significant difference in the mean Wexner and FIQL scores between patients having PTNS and SNS at 6 (P = 0.39 and 0.09) and 12 months (P = 0.79 and 0.37). A 50% or more improvement in Wexner score was seen at 6 and 12 months in 47% and 30% of PTNS patients and in 50% and 58% of SNS patients with no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a valid method of treating faecal incontinence in the short term when conservative treatment has failed. It is easier, simpler, cheaper and less invasive than SNS with a similar short-term outcome.

Treatments of faecal incontinence: recommendations from the French national society of coloproctology.

Faecal incontinence is common and significantly affects quality of life. Its treatment involves dietary manipulation, medical treatments, perineal rehabilitation or surgery. In this paper, the French National Society of Coloproctology offers recommendations based on the data in the current literature, including those on recently developed treatments. There is a lack of high quality data and most of the recommendations are therefore based either on grade of recommendation B or expert recommendation (Level 4). However, the literature supports the construction of an algorithm based on the available scientific evidence and expert recommendation which may be useful in clinical practice. The French National Society of Coloproctology proposes a decision-making algorithm that includes recent developments of treatment. The current recommendations support sacral nerve modulation as the key treatment for faecal incontinence. They do not support the use of sphincter substitutions except in certain circumstances. Transanal irrigation is a novel often successful treatment of faecal incontinence due to neurological disorders.

Surgical approaches to fecal incontinence in the adult.

Surgical treatment of anal incontinence is indicated only for patients who have failed medical treatment. Sphincterorraphy is suitable in case of external sphincter rupture. In the last decade, sacral nerve stimulation has proven to be a scientifically validated solution when no sphincter lesion has been identified and more recently has also been proposed as an alternative in cases of limited sphincter defect. Anal reconstruction using artificial sphincters is still under evaluation in the literature, while indications for dynamic graciloplasty are decreasing due to its complexity and high morbidity. Less risky techniques involving intra-sphincteric injections are being developed, with encouraging preliminary results that need to be confirmed especially in the medium- and long-term. Antegrade colonic enemas instilled via cecostomy (Malone) can be an alternative to permanent stoma in patients who are well instructed in the techniques of colonic lavage. Stomal diversion is a solution of last resort.

Does the magnetic anal sphincter device compare favourably with sacral nerve stimulation in the management of faecal incontinence?

AIM: The magnetic anal sphincter (MAS) is a recent surgical innovation for severe faecal incontinence (FI). With its place in the treatment algorithm of FI yet to be defined, we report a nonrandomized comparison between MAS and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in a single-centre cohort of patients with FI. METHOD: Data were reviewed from prospective databases. From December 2008 to December 2010, 12 women [median age 65 (42-76) years], having FI for a median of 6.5 years, were implanted with a MAS. Sixteen women, of similar age, preoperative function scores, aetiology and duration of incontinence, and implanted with a permanent SNS pulse generator during the same period, served as a reference group. The duration of hospital stay, complications, change in incontinence and quality of life scores and anal physiology were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The duration of follow up was similar [MAS = 18 (8-30) months vs SNS = 22 (10-28) months; P = 0.318]. Four patients with MAS experienced a 30-day complication, and the device was removed from one patient in each group. A significant improvement in incontinence (P < 0.001) and quality-of-life scores (P < 0.04) occurred in both groups. Mean anal resting pressure increased significantly in patients implanted with a MAS (P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: In this single-centre nonrandomized cohort of FI patients, MAS was as effective as SNS in improving continence and quality of life, with similar morbidity. These results can now serve as a prelude to a randomized trial comparing the procedures.

Predictive factors for successful sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence: results of trial stimulation in 200 patients.

AIM: Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) has a place in the treatment algorithm for faecal incontinence (FI). However, after implantation, 15-30% of patients with FI fail to respond for unknown reasons. We investigated the effect of SNS on continence and quality of life (QOL) and tried to identify specific predictive factors of the success of permanent SNS in the treatment of FI. METHOD: Two hundred consecutive patients (six men; median age = 60; range 16-81) underwent permanent implantation for FI. The severity of FI was evaluated by the Cleveland Clinic Score. Quality of life was evaluated by the French version of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) quality of life questionnaire (FIQL). All patients underwent a preoperative evaluation. After permanent implantation, severity and QOL scores were reevaluated after six and 12 months and then once a year. RESULTS: The severity scores were significantly reduced during SNS (P = 0.001). QOL improved in all domains. At the 6-month follow-up, the clinical outcome of the permanent implant was not affected by age, gender, duration of symptoms, QOL, main causes of FI, anorectal manometry or endoanal ultrasound results. Only loose stool consistency (P = 0.01), persistent FI even though diarrhoea was controlled by medical treatment (P = 0.004), and low stimulation intensity (P = 0.02) were associated with improved short-term outcomes. Multivariate analysis confirmed that loose stool consistency and low stimulation intensity were related to a favourable outcome. CONCLUSION: Stool consistency and low stimulation intensity have been identified as predictive factors for the short-term outcome of SNS.

Long-term results of Malone's procedure with antegrade irrigation for severe chronic constipation.

AIM: The Malone antegrade colonic enema (MACE) procedure is a minimally invasive treatment for severe constipation, and the objective of the present study was to assess the long-term results and quality of life in patients undergoing such colonic irrigation. METHOD: Twenty-five adult patients underwent MACE between 1995 and 2002 for chronic constipation. After a mean follow-up duration of 55+/-36 months, the patients answered questionnaires to assess stoma usage, constipation score (KESS) and quality of life (GIQLI). RESULTS: The mean quality-of-life scores for these patients was 83+/-28 (normal: 125), while their mean constipation score was 19+/-9 (normal: <7). Twelve patients stopped the irrigations, and eight underwent further surgical procedures, specifically, total colectomy with ileostomy (n=2), ileorectal anastomosis (n=3) or segmental colectomy (n=3). Finally, five patients had permanent stoma. The 13 remaining patients continued to perform irrigations (4.6 per week). The patients' mean KESS score was 18.3+/-8 (normal: <7), and the mean GIQLI score was 98+/-20 (normal: 125). Continence status had no influence on success. CONCLUSION: In our series, MACE was successful in half the patients who were, thus, able to avoid more aggressive approaches. However, when MACE failed, other surgical procedures were often required.

Sacral nerve stimulation in faecal incontinence: position statement based on a collective experience.

OBJECTIVE: Since the first paper published by Matzel et al., in 1995, on the efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) in patients with faecal incontinence, the indications, the contraindications, the stimulation technique and follow up of implanted patients have changed. The aim of this article was to provide a consensus opinion on the management of patients with faecal incontinence treated with SNS. METHOD: Recommendations were based on a critical review of the literature when available and on expert opinions in areas with insufficient evidence. RESULTS: We have reviewed the indications and contraindications, proposed an algorithm for patient management showing the place of SNS. The temporary test technique, the implantation technique, the patient follow up and the approach in case of treatment failure were discussed. CONCLUSION: We hope not only to provide a guide on patient management to clinical practitioners interested in SNS but also to harmonize our practices.

Value of sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of severe faecal incontinence: a comparison to the artificial bowel sphincter.

OBJECTIVE: Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) is a recent treatment option in the management of severe faecal incontinence (FI) that offers promising results. The aim of this study was to compare SNS to artificial bowel sphincter (ABS) implanted patients to assess the rationale of this approach in achieving satisfying functional results and improved quality of life (QoL). METHOD: Among 27 patients tested (December 2001 and April 2004), 15 patients were successfully managed with SNS. They were compared to 15 matched patients implanted with ABS in a previous period (control group). Assessment of continence level (Cleveland Clinic score), constipation score (Knowles, Eccersley, Scott Score) and QoL (Short-Form 36) were prospectively collected. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable for clinical parameters (age, gender, anal testing and aetiology of incontinence) and anal physiology. The mean postoperative continence score was significantly higher in the SNS group [9.4 (+/-3.3) vs 5.7 (+/-3.9), P < 0.01]; however, the mean constipation score was higher in the ABS group (6.3 +/- 6.3 vs 12.8 +/- 5.7, P < 0.01). The mean QoL score was similar in both groups. The mean follow-up after implantation was 15 (+/-9) months in the SNS group, and 43 (+/-33) months in the ABS group. CONCLUSION: In this study, SNS offers satisfying results in terms of QoL, similar to that of ABS. Although it seems to be less effective in restoring continence level, symptoms of outlet obstruction are more frequent after ABS. This SNS approach should be proposed as a first-line treatment of FI in selected patients. ABS should remain an option that can improve function.

Poor symptomatic relief and quality of life in patients treated for "solitary rectal ulcer syndrome without external rectal prolapse".

BACKGROUND: Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) is a chronic disabling condition. Several therapeutic options have been advocated including conservative approaches and surgery, bringing into question their functional outcomes. This study aimed to assess treatment procedures on both anorectal complaints and quality of life (QoL) using standardised self-administered questionnaires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients who underwent treatments for SRUS in two referral centres were reviewed. A standardised self-administered questionnaire including incontinence (Cleveland Clinic), constipation (Knowles-Eccersley-Scott symptom, KESS) and gastrointestinal quality of life index validated scoring systems was mailed to each patient (median follow-up, 36 months). Correlation between treatment options, functional results and quality of life was analysed. RESULTS: The mean Cleveland Clinic and KESS scores were respectively 5.3+/-5.8 (normal 0) and 19.1+/-8 (normal<9). The mean QoL score reached 89+/-28.8 (normal 125). A linear correlation between the QoL score and functional results was observed. There was no influence of treatment options on QoL results. A multivariate analysis identified five parameters predictive of a better QoL: presence of paradoxical puborectalis contraction, absence of descending perineum, absence of procidentia, age<40 and treatment exclusively based on laxatives. CONCLUSION: Despite several therapeutic options including surgery, patients with SRUS still frequently complain of disturbed anorectal function and significant alteration of their QoL.