4.6 Article

New sacral neuromodulation lead for percutaneous implantation using local anesthesia: Description and first experience

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 170, 期 5, 页码 1905-1907

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000092634.64580.9a

关键词

prostheses and implants; bladder; incontinence; transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In functional urology today chronic stimulation of the sacral nerves has become one of the most accepted methods of stimulation treatment. Many studies have described the advantage of test stimulation prior to implanting the definitive system to enable effective patient selection. We studied a method aimed at improving lead anchoring by developing a self-blocking electrode with a simple placement procedure, in the process creating a 2-stage approach to full percutaneous implantation that allows a long screening period during the first temporary stimulation stage. Materials and Methods: A new tined lead was specifically designed to allow minimally invasive percutaneous lead placement requiring no incision and no additional fascial anchoring. From September 2001 to November 2002, 15 consecutive patients (3 males and 12 females) 27 to 70 years old (mean age 49) underwent this procedure and were prospectively evaluated. No PNE test was performed. Results: Following the first stage screening phase 12 patients were implanted with the implantable pulse generator (IPG), while 3 who did not respond positively to test stimulation (neurogenic voiding dysfunction, urge incontinence and neurogenic urge incontinence in 1 each) did not undergo IPG implantation and had the tined lead removed under local anesthesia. We did not observe any lead displacement during the screening period (average 38.8 days) or during followup of IPG implanted cases (average 11 months, range 5 to 19). Conclusions: Our results show that the new tined anchoring system is a reliable way to allow truly minimally invasive placement of the chronic lead.

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

4.6
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