4.8 Article

Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence due to systemic sclerosis

期刊

GUT
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 881-883

出版社

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gut.51.6.881

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Faecal incontinence occurs in over one third of patients with systemic sclerosis. The aetiology is multifactorial. Conventional treatment is often unsuccessful. Sacral nerve stimulation is a new effective treatment for resistant faecal incontinence. Aims: To evaluate sacral nerve stimulation in patients with systemic sclerosis. Patients: Five women, median age 61 years (30-71), with scleroderma associated faecal incontinence were evaluated. All had failed maximal conventional treatment. Median number of preoperative weekly episodes of incontinence was 15 (7-25), median duration of incontinence was five years (5-9), and scleroderma 13 years (4-29). Methods: All patients were screened with temporary stimulation. Those who benefited underwent permanent implantation. At baseline and after stimulation a bowel diary, the SF-36 quality of life assessment, endoanal ultrasound, and anorectal physiology were performed. Results: Four patients were continent at a median follow up of 24 months (6-60). One patient failed temporary stimulation and was not permanently implanted. The weekly episodes of incontinence decreased from 15, 11, 23, and 7 to 0. Urgency resolved (median time to defer < 1 minute (0-1) v 12.5 minutes (5-15)). Quality of life, especially social function, improved. Endloanal ultrasound showed an atrophic internal anal sphincter (median width 1.0 mm (0-1.6)). Anorectal physiology showed an increase in median resting pressure (37 pre v 65 cm H2O post) and squeeze pressure (89 v 105 cm H2O). Stimulation produced enhanced rectal sensitivity to distension. There were no major complications. Conclusions: Sacral nerve stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for resistant faecal incontinence secondary to scleroderma. The benefit is maintained in the medium term.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据