Douven Perla, Tilborghs Sam, van de Borne Sigrid, van Koeveringe Gommert A, de Wachter Stefan
Department of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Center, The Netherlands; Department of Translational Neuroscience, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Department of Urology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium; Department of Urology, Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Anatomy, University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Neuromodulation. 2025 Jul;28(5):858-864. doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2024.06.502. Epub 2024 Jul 31.
Currently, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) outcomes are often suboptimal, and changing stimulation parameters might improve SNM efficacy. Burst stimulation mimics physiological burst firing of the nervous system and might therefore benefit patients treated with SNM. The purpose of the present pilot study was to evaluate the effect of various Burst SNM paradigms on bladder and urethral pressure in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) or nonobstructive urinary retention (NOUR).
The bladder was filled to 50% of its capacity under general anesthesia in six patients with an implanted sacral lead for SNM purposes. Bladder pressure, and mid- and proximal urethral pressure were measured using conventional (Con-) SNM and various Burst SNM paradigms (10-20-40 Hz interburst frequency) with increasing amplitudes up to 5 mA for Con-SNM and 4 mA for Burst SNM.
Burst SNM caused a substantial increase in both bladder and urethral pressure. In contrast, Con-SNM caused a milder increase in urethral pressure, and only one patient showed a modest increase in bladder pressure. Furthermore, the pressure increase was higher in the proximal urethra than in the midurethra using Burst-SNM, whereas Con-SNM caused comparable increases in proximal and midurethra pressure.
Burst SNM induces bladder contraction compared with Con-SNM and induces higher pressure increases in bladder and proximal urethra than does Con-SNM in patients with OAB or NOUR, indicating a higher degree of autonomic nervous system stimulation. The observed responses could not be fully explained by the total charge of the Burst SNM paradigms, which suggests the importance of individual Burst SNM parameters, such as frequency and amplitude. Future studies should assess the feasibility and efficacy of Burst SNM in awake patients.
目前,骶神经调节(SNM)的效果往往不尽人意,改变刺激参数可能会提高SNM的疗效。爆发式刺激模仿神经系统的生理性爆发式放电,因此可能对接受SNM治疗的患者有益。本初步研究的目的是评估各种爆发式SNM模式对膀胱过度活动症(OAB)或非梗阻性尿潴留(NOUR)患者膀胱和尿道压力的影响。
在全身麻醉下,对6例植入骶神经刺激导线用于SNM的患者,将膀胱充盈至其容量的50%。使用传统(Con-)SNM和各种爆发式SNM模式(爆发间期频率为10-20-40Hz)测量膀胱压力、尿道中段和近端压力,Con-SNM的幅度增加至5mA,爆发式SNM的幅度增加至4mA。
爆发式SNM使膀胱和尿道压力均显著增加。相比之下,Con-SNM使尿道压力的增加较为轻微,只有1例患者膀胱压力有适度增加。此外,使用爆发式SNM时,近端尿道的压力升高高于尿道中段,而Con-SNM使近端和尿道中段压力的升高相当。
与Con-SNM相比,爆发式SNM可诱发膀胱收缩,在OAB或NOUR患者中,爆发式SNM比Con-SNM引起膀胱和近端尿道更高的压力升高,表明自主神经系统刺激程度更高。观察到的反应不能完全由爆发式SNM模式的总电荷量来解释,这表明爆发式SNM的各个参数(如频率和幅度)很重要。未来的研究应评估爆发式SNM在清醒患者中的可行性和疗效。