Department of Gastroenterology, Bordeaux University Hospital, and Université de Bordeaux and Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) CIC 1401, Bordeaux, France.
Department of Gastroenterology, Rennes University Hospital, and Université de Rennes, Rennes, France.
Br J Surg. 2017 Feb;104(3):205-213. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10326. Epub 2016 Oct 25.
Open studies have reported favourable results for sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of refractory constipation. Here, its efficacy was assessed in a double-blind crossover RCT.
Patients with at least two of the following criteria were included: fewer than three bowel movements per week; straining to evacuate on more than 25 per cent of attempts; or sensation of incomplete evacuation on more than 25 per cent of occasions. Response to therapy was defined as at least three bowel movements per week and/or more than 50 per cent improvement in symptoms. Responders to an initial 3-week peripheral nerve evaluation were offered permanent implantation of a pulse generator and were assigned randomly in a crossover design to two 8-week intervals of active or sham stimulation. At the end of the two trial periods, the patients received active stimulation until the final evaluation at 1 year.
Thirty-six patients (34 women; mean(s.d.) age 45(14) years) underwent peripheral nerve evaluation. Twenty responded and received a permanent stimulator. A positive response was observed in 12 of 20 and 11 of 20 patients after active and sham stimulation periods respectively (P = 0·746). Pain related to the device occurred in five patients and wound infection or haematoma in three, leading to definitive removal of the pulse generator in two patients. At 1 year, 11 of the 20 patients with an implanted device continued to respond. Stimulation had no significant effect on colonic transit time.
These results do not support the recommendation of permanent implantation of a pulse generator in patients with refractory constipation who initially responded to temporary nerve stimulation. Registration number: NCT01629303 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
开放研究报告称,骶神经刺激治疗难治性便秘效果良好。在此,我们采用双盲交叉 RCT 对其疗效进行评估。
纳入标准为:每周排便次数少于 3 次;排便费力,占尝试次数的 25%以上;或排便不尽感超过 25%的次数。治疗反应定义为每周至少 3 次排便,或症状改善超过 50%。对初始 3 周外周神经评估有反应的患者接受永久性脉冲发生器植入,并以交叉设计随机分为主动刺激或假刺激 2 个 8 周期。在两个试验期结束时,患者接受主动刺激,直至 1 年时的最终评估。
36 例患者(34 例女性;平均(标准差)年龄 45(14)岁)接受了外周神经评估。20 例有反应并接受了永久性刺激器。主动刺激和假刺激后分别有 12/20 和 11/20 例患者有阳性反应(P = 0.746)。5 例患者出现与器械相关的疼痛,3 例患者出现伤口感染或血肿,导致 2 例患者永久性移除脉冲发生器。在 1 年时,20 例植入设备的患者中有 11 例继续有反应。刺激对结肠传输时间没有显著影响。
这些结果不支持对最初对外周神经刺激有反应的难治性便秘患者推荐永久性植入脉冲发生器。注册号:NCT01629303(http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)。