Ganio E, Ratto C, Masin A, Luc A R, Doglietto G B, Dodi G, Ripetti V, Arullani A, Frascio M, BertiRiboli E, Landolfi V, DelGenio A, Altomare D F, Memeo V, Bertapelle P, Carone R, Spinelli M, Zanollo A, Spreafico L, Giardiello G, de Seta F
Colorectal-Eporediensis-Centre, C. so Nigra 37, 10015 Ivrea, Italy.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2001 Jul;44(7):965-70. doi: 10.1007/BF02235484.
Sacral nerve modulation appears to offer a valid treatment option for some patients with fecal incontinence and functional defects of the internal anal sphincter or of the striated muscle.
Sixteen patients with fecal incontinence (4 males; mean age, 51.4 (range, 27-79) years) with intact or surgically repaired (n = 1) anal sphincter underwent permanent sacral nerve stimulation implant. Cause was traumatic in two patients, and associated disorders included scleroderma (2 patients) and spastic paraparesis (1 patient); eight (50 percent) of the patients also had urinary incontinence, and two (12.5 percent) had nonobstructive urinary retention. All patients were selected on the basis of positive findings from at least one peripheral nerve evaluation. The stimulating electrode was positioned in the S2 (1 patient), S3 (14 patients), or S4 (1 patient) sacral foramen.
Mean follow-up was 15.5 (range, 3-45) months. Mean preimplant Williams score decreased from 4.1 +/- 0.9 (range, 2-5) to 1.25 +/- 0.5 (range, 1-2) (P = 0.01, Wilcoxon test), and the number of incontinence accidents for liquid or solid stool in 14 days decreased from 11.5 +/- 4.8 (range, 2-20) before implant to 0.6 +/- 0.9 (range, 0-2) at the last follow-up. Important manometric data were an increase in mean maximal pressure at rest of 37.7 +/- 14.9 mmHg (implantable pulse generator 49.1 +/- 18.7, P = 0.04) and in mean maximal pressure during squeeze (prestimulation 67.3 +/- 21.1 mmHg, implantable pulse generator 82.6 +/- 21.0, P = 0.09).
Neuromodulation can be considered an option for fecal incontinence. However, an accurate clinical and instrumental evaluation and careful patient selection are required to optimize outcome.
对于一些患有大便失禁以及肛门内括约肌或横纹肌功能缺陷的患者,骶神经调节似乎是一种有效的治疗选择。
16例大便失禁患者(4例男性;平均年龄51.4岁(范围27 - 79岁)),肛门括约肌完整或经手术修复(n = 1),接受了永久性骶神经刺激植入。2例患者病因是创伤性的,相关疾病包括硬皮病(2例)和痉挛性截瘫(1例);8例(50%)患者还患有尿失禁,2例(12.5%)患有非梗阻性尿潴留。所有患者均基于至少一项周围神经评估的阳性结果入选。刺激电极置于S2(1例)、S3(14例)或S4(1例)骶孔。
平均随访时间为15.5个月(范围3 - 45个月)。植入前平均威廉姆斯评分从4.1±0.9(范围2 - 5)降至1.25±0.5(范围1 - 2)(P = 0.01,威尔科克森检验),14天内液体或固体粪便失禁次数从植入前的11.5±4.8(范围2 - 20)降至最后随访时的0.6±0.9(范围0 - 2)。重要的测压数据为静息时平均最大压力增加37.7±14.9 mmHg(植入式脉冲发生器为49.1±18.7,P = 0.04)以及收缩时平均最大压力增加(刺激前67.3±21.1 mmHg,植入式脉冲发生器82.6±21.0,P = 0.09)。
神经调节可被视为大便失禁的一种治疗选择。然而,需要进行准确的临床和器械评估以及仔细的患者选择以优化治疗效果。