Sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique with a curved vs a straight stylet: 2‐year clinical outcomes and sensory responses to lead stimulation
Objectives To assess clinical follow‐up data over 24 months, comparing the use of a curved vs straight stylet in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique. Patients and Methods We conducted a single tertiary‐centre, prospective study between...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BJU international 2019-05, Vol.123 (5A), p.E7-E13 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | E13 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5A |
| container_start_page | E7 |
| container_title | BJU international |
| container_volume | 123 |
| creator | Vaganée, Donald Kessler, Thomas M. Van de Borne, Sigrid De Win, Gunter De Wachter, Stefan |
| description | Objectives
To assess clinical follow‐up data over 24 months, comparing the use of a curved vs straight stylet in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique.
Patients and Methods
We conducted a single tertiary‐centre, prospective study between August 2013 and June 2015 involving 40 patients with overactive bladder and 15 with non‐obstructive urinary retention refractory to first‐line treatment. The primary outcome was successful tined lead procedure according to intention‐to‐treat analyses at 12 and 24 months. The secondary outcome was number of optimal electrode configurations during programming. Statistical analysis was performed using plain non‐parametric tests for numerical and categorical data.
Results
Successful tined lead procedures were achieved in 33 of 35 patients (94%) implanted with the curved stylet compared with 13 of 20 patients (65%) implanted with the straight stylet (P = 0.005). Intention‐to‐treat analyses at 12 and 24 months showed success rates of 94% and 91%, respectively, in the curved stylet group vs 65% and 45%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001). In the curved stylet group, 60% and 25% of the electrode configurations were considered optimal and poor, respectively, vs 40% and 37%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P < 0.001).
Conclusions
The use of the standardized implantation technique with the curved stylet led to more successful tined lead procedures, better success rates after 2 years of follow‐up and a greater number of optimal electrode configurations when compared to use of the straight stylet. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/bju.14650 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2155162811</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2155162811</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3600-b58b8beda2848c13793b5059519c5dec32dcb8b2be0d076a343be62ebd227b5f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kclOHDEQhq0oUVgPeYHIx3AY8NLu6cktIJZESBwSJG4tLzWMkdueeAF1TnkEHifPkyfBpIfc8MH1q_Tpryr9CH2g5JDWd6TuyiFtWkHeoO1am1lDyc3bF00W7RbaSemOkNpoxXu0xYngc8b4NvrzXeooHfZQYhiCKU5mGzwuyfpbnFeAU5beyGjsLzA4W19_B9JgO6yd9HnCM-iVtz8L4AebV1hiXeJ9Je9T1SlHaW9XuYrRQf6M2d_fjyPIiLWz3uo6PpSswwCV9gYn8CnEEUdI6-BT7eYwzUzZDpsN99C7pXQJ9jd1F12fnf44uZhdXp1_PflyOdO8JWSmRKc6BUayruk05fMFV4KIhaALLQxozoyuAFNADJm3kjdcQctAGcbmSiz5Lvo0-a5jqPel3A82aXD1dggl9YwKQVvWUVrRgwnVMaQUYdmvox1kHHtK-ueg-hpU_y-oyn7c2BY1gPlPviRTgaMJeLAOxted-uNv15PlEwlzo38</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2155162811</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique with a curved vs a straight stylet: 2‐year clinical outcomes and sensory responses to lead stimulation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Vaganée, Donald ; Kessler, Thomas M. ; Van de Borne, Sigrid ; De Win, Gunter ; De Wachter, Stefan</creator><creatorcontrib>Vaganée, Donald ; Kessler, Thomas M. ; Van de Borne, Sigrid ; De Win, Gunter ; De Wachter, Stefan</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To assess clinical follow‐up data over 24 months, comparing the use of a curved vs straight stylet in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique.
Patients and Methods
We conducted a single tertiary‐centre, prospective study between August 2013 and June 2015 involving 40 patients with overactive bladder and 15 with non‐obstructive urinary retention refractory to first‐line treatment. The primary outcome was successful tined lead procedure according to intention‐to‐treat analyses at 12 and 24 months. The secondary outcome was number of optimal electrode configurations during programming. Statistical analysis was performed using plain non‐parametric tests for numerical and categorical data.
Results
Successful tined lead procedures were achieved in 33 of 35 patients (94%) implanted with the curved stylet compared with 13 of 20 patients (65%) implanted with the straight stylet (P = 0.005). Intention‐to‐treat analyses at 12 and 24 months showed success rates of 94% and 91%, respectively, in the curved stylet group vs 65% and 45%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001). In the curved stylet group, 60% and 25% of the electrode configurations were considered optimal and poor, respectively, vs 40% and 37%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P < 0.001).
Conclusions
The use of the standardized implantation technique with the curved stylet led to more successful tined lead procedures, better success rates after 2 years of follow‐up and a greater number of optimal electrode configurations when compared to use of the straight stylet.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1464-4096</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-410X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bju.14650</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30537223</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Electric Stimulation Therapy - instrumentation ; Electrodes, Implanted ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Incontinence ; Lumbosacral Plexus ; Male ; Middle Aged ; overactive bladder ; pelvic organ dysfunction ; Prospective Studies ; sacral neuromodulation ; sacral neurostimulation ; Treatment Outcome ; Urinary Bladder, Overactive - therapy ; urinary incontinence ; urinary retention ; Urinary Retention - therapy ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>BJU international, 2019-05, Vol.123 (5A), p.E7-E13</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3600-b58b8beda2848c13793b5059519c5dec32dcb8b2be0d076a343be62ebd227b5f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3600-b58b8beda2848c13793b5059519c5dec32dcb8b2be0d076a343be62ebd227b5f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1991-5919 ; 0000-0002-2882-674X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fbju.14650$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fbju.14650$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30537223$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vaganée, Donald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kessler, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Borne, Sigrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Win, Gunter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Wachter, Stefan</creatorcontrib><title>Sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique with a curved vs a straight stylet: 2‐year clinical outcomes and sensory responses to lead stimulation</title><title>BJU international</title><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><description>Objectives
To assess clinical follow‐up data over 24 months, comparing the use of a curved vs straight stylet in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique.
Patients and Methods
We conducted a single tertiary‐centre, prospective study between August 2013 and June 2015 involving 40 patients with overactive bladder and 15 with non‐obstructive urinary retention refractory to first‐line treatment. The primary outcome was successful tined lead procedure according to intention‐to‐treat analyses at 12 and 24 months. The secondary outcome was number of optimal electrode configurations during programming. Statistical analysis was performed using plain non‐parametric tests for numerical and categorical data.
Results
Successful tined lead procedures were achieved in 33 of 35 patients (94%) implanted with the curved stylet compared with 13 of 20 patients (65%) implanted with the straight stylet (P = 0.005). Intention‐to‐treat analyses at 12 and 24 months showed success rates of 94% and 91%, respectively, in the curved stylet group vs 65% and 45%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001). In the curved stylet group, 60% and 25% of the electrode configurations were considered optimal and poor, respectively, vs 40% and 37%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P < 0.001).
Conclusions
The use of the standardized implantation technique with the curved stylet led to more successful tined lead procedures, better success rates after 2 years of follow‐up and a greater number of optimal electrode configurations when compared to use of the straight stylet.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Electric Stimulation Therapy - instrumentation</subject><subject>Electrodes, Implanted</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incontinence</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Plexus</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>overactive bladder</subject><subject>pelvic organ dysfunction</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>sacral neuromodulation</subject><subject>sacral neurostimulation</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder, Overactive - therapy</subject><subject>urinary incontinence</subject><subject>urinary retention</subject><subject>Urinary Retention - therapy</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1464-4096</issn><issn>1464-410X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kclOHDEQhq0oUVgPeYHIx3AY8NLu6cktIJZESBwSJG4tLzWMkdueeAF1TnkEHifPkyfBpIfc8MH1q_Tpryr9CH2g5JDWd6TuyiFtWkHeoO1am1lDyc3bF00W7RbaSemOkNpoxXu0xYngc8b4NvrzXeooHfZQYhiCKU5mGzwuyfpbnFeAU5beyGjsLzA4W19_B9JgO6yd9HnCM-iVtz8L4AebV1hiXeJ9Je9T1SlHaW9XuYrRQf6M2d_fjyPIiLWz3uo6PpSswwCV9gYn8CnEEUdI6-BT7eYwzUzZDpsN99C7pXQJ9jd1F12fnf44uZhdXp1_PflyOdO8JWSmRKc6BUayruk05fMFV4KIhaALLQxozoyuAFNADJm3kjdcQctAGcbmSiz5Lvo0-a5jqPel3A82aXD1dggl9YwKQVvWUVrRgwnVMaQUYdmvox1kHHtK-ueg-hpU_y-oyn7c2BY1gPlPviRTgaMJeLAOxted-uNv15PlEwlzo38</recordid><startdate>201905</startdate><enddate>201905</enddate><creator>Vaganée, Donald</creator><creator>Kessler, Thomas M.</creator><creator>Van de Borne, Sigrid</creator><creator>De Win, Gunter</creator><creator>De Wachter, Stefan</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1991-5919</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2882-674X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201905</creationdate><title>Sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique with a curved vs a straight stylet: 2‐year clinical outcomes and sensory responses to lead stimulation</title><author>Vaganée, Donald ; Kessler, Thomas M. ; Van de Borne, Sigrid ; De Win, Gunter ; De Wachter, Stefan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3600-b58b8beda2848c13793b5059519c5dec32dcb8b2be0d076a343be62ebd227b5f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Electric Stimulation Therapy - instrumentation</topic><topic>Electrodes, Implanted</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incontinence</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Plexus</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>overactive bladder</topic><topic>pelvic organ dysfunction</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>sacral neuromodulation</topic><topic>sacral neurostimulation</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder, Overactive - therapy</topic><topic>urinary incontinence</topic><topic>urinary retention</topic><topic>Urinary Retention - therapy</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vaganée, Donald</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kessler, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van de Borne, Sigrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Win, Gunter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Wachter, Stefan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vaganée, Donald</au><au>Kessler, Thomas M.</au><au>Van de Borne, Sigrid</au><au>De Win, Gunter</au><au>De Wachter, Stefan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique with a curved vs a straight stylet: 2‐year clinical outcomes and sensory responses to lead stimulation</atitle><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><date>2019-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>123</volume><issue>5A</issue><spage>E7</spage><epage>E13</epage><pages>E7-E13</pages><issn>1464-4096</issn><eissn>1464-410X</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To assess clinical follow‐up data over 24 months, comparing the use of a curved vs straight stylet in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique.
Patients and Methods
We conducted a single tertiary‐centre, prospective study between August 2013 and June 2015 involving 40 patients with overactive bladder and 15 with non‐obstructive urinary retention refractory to first‐line treatment. The primary outcome was successful tined lead procedure according to intention‐to‐treat analyses at 12 and 24 months. The secondary outcome was number of optimal electrode configurations during programming. Statistical analysis was performed using plain non‐parametric tests for numerical and categorical data.
Results
Successful tined lead procedures were achieved in 33 of 35 patients (94%) implanted with the curved stylet compared with 13 of 20 patients (65%) implanted with the straight stylet (P = 0.005). Intention‐to‐treat analyses at 12 and 24 months showed success rates of 94% and 91%, respectively, in the curved stylet group vs 65% and 45%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001). In the curved stylet group, 60% and 25% of the electrode configurations were considered optimal and poor, respectively, vs 40% and 37%, respectively, in the straight stylet group (P < 0.001).
Conclusions
The use of the standardized implantation technique with the curved stylet led to more successful tined lead procedures, better success rates after 2 years of follow‐up and a greater number of optimal electrode configurations when compared to use of the straight stylet.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>30537223</pmid><doi>10.1111/bju.14650</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1991-5919</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2882-674X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1464-4096 |
| ispartof | BJU international, 2019-05, Vol.123 (5A), p.E7-E13 |
| issn | 1464-4096 1464-410X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2155162811 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Electric Stimulation Therapy - instrumentation Electrodes, Implanted Female Follow-Up Studies Humans Incontinence Lumbosacral Plexus Male Middle Aged overactive bladder pelvic organ dysfunction Prospective Studies sacral neuromodulation sacral neurostimulation Treatment Outcome Urinary Bladder, Overactive - therapy urinary incontinence urinary retention Urinary Retention - therapy Young Adult |
| title | Sacral neuromodulation using the standardized tined lead implantation technique with a curved vs a straight stylet: 2‐year clinical outcomes and sensory responses to lead stimulation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-22T18%3A24%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sacral%20neuromodulation%20using%20the%20standardized%20tined%20lead%20implantation%20technique%20with%20a%20curved%20vs%20a%20straight%20stylet:%202%E2%80%90year%20clinical%20outcomes%20and%20sensory%20responses%20to%20lead%20stimulation&rft.jtitle=BJU%20international&rft.au=Vagan%C3%A9e,%20Donald&rft.date=2019-05&rft.volume=123&rft.issue=5A&rft.spage=E7&rft.epage=E13&rft.pages=E7-E13&rft.issn=1464-4096&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bju.14650&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2155162811%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2155162811&rft_id=info:pmid/30537223&rfr_iscdi=true |