Prospective clinical audit of two neuromodulatory treatments for fecal incontinence: sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Two types of neuromodulation are currently practised for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI): sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). This study compares these therapies, as no data exist to prospectively assess their relative efficacy and costs. METHODS: The subjects of this study were two distinct cohorts undergoing SNS (between 2003 and 2008) or PTNS (2008-onwards) for FI. Clinical outcomes assessed at 3 months included incontinence scores and the number of weekly incontinence episodes. The direct medical costs for each procedure were calculated from the audited expenditure of our unit. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (94.6 % women) underwent permanent SNS and 146 (87.7 % women) underwent PTNS. The mean pre-treatment incontinence score (± SD) was greater in the SNS cohort (14 ± 4 vs. 12 ± 4) and the mean post-treatment incontinence scores were similar for the two therapies (9 ± 5 vs. 10 ± 4), with a greater effect size evident in the SNS patients. In a 'pseudo case-control' analysis with 37 "matched" patients, the effect of both treatments was similar. The cost of treating a patient for 1 year was £ 11,374 ($ 18,223) for permanent SNS vs. £ 1740 ($ 2784) for PTNS. CONCLUSION: Given the lesser cost and invasive nature of PTNS, where both techniques are available, a trial of PTNS could be considered for all patients.