Is sacral neuromodulation effective and safe in pregnancy? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

We systematically assessed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) in pregnancy.

METHODS

On September 2022, a thorough search was done on Ovid, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. We chose studies that included pregnant women who had SNM previously. Two authors independently evaluated the quality of the study using a standardized tool of JBI. Studies were given a risk of bias rating of low, moderate, or high. Given the descriptive nature of this study, we utilized descriptive statistics to report demographic and clinical features. For continuous variables, we used mean and standard deviation, and for dichotomous data, we used frequencies and percentages.

RESULTS

Out of 991 abstracts screened, only 14 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Overall, the quality of the evidence available from the literature is low based on the design of the included studies. Fifty-eight women, including 72 pregnancies, had SNM. The indication of SNM implantation was filling phase disorders in 18 cases (30.5%), voiding dysfunction in 35 women (59.3%), IC/BPS in two cases (3.5%), and fecal incontinence. In 38 pregnancies (58.5%), the SNM status was ON during pregnancy. Forty-nine cases delivered a full-term baby (75.4%), 12 cases had pre-term labor (18.5%), two miscarriages, and two postterm pregnancies happened. The most complications in patients with devices were urinary tract infection in 15 women (23.8%), urinary retention in six patients (9.5%), and pyelonephritis in two cases (3.2%). The findings revealed that when the device was deactivated, 11 cases out of the 23 patients (47.8%) had full-term pregnancies, while in ON status, 35 out of the 38 pregnant women (92.1%) had full-term pregnancies. Nine preterm labors in OFF (39.1%), and two in ON status (5.3%) were recorded. The results revealed that this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002), and those who turned SNM of them off had more preterm labor. Although the studies reported all neonates had a healthy status, two children had chronic motor tic problems and a pilonidal sinus in a case with an active SNM in pregnancy. However, there was no association between the SNM status and pregnancy or neonatal complications (p = 0.057).

CONCLUSION

SNM activation in pregnancy seems safe and effective. The choice of whether to activate or deactivate SNM should be made on an individual basis given the current SNM evidence.