Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Jun;31(6):653-660.
doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000001379.

A randomized double-blinded sham-controlled cross-over trial of tined-lead sacral nerve stimulation testing for chronic constipation

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomized double-blinded sham-controlled cross-over trial of tined-lead sacral nerve stimulation testing for chronic constipation

Yan Yiannakou et al. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) may provide long-term symptom relief to patients suffering from chronic constipation. Patients are currently selected for SNS using a 2-week peripheral nerve evaluation (PNE) comprising stimulation by temporary leads. However, only 40% of test responders receive long-term benefit from treatment meaning that healthcare costs per successfully treated patient are too high. The primary objective was to assess tined-lead testing to predict benefit from SNS for chronic constipation.

Patients and methods: A randomized double-blind sham-controlled cross-over design evaluated enhanced PNE (ePNE) using tined quadripolar electrode leads over 6 weeks. The design differentiated between patients with discriminate and indiscriminate responses to testing. A score improvement of 25% or more was considered to be a positive response within a stimulation period. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients showing a reduction of at least 0.5 in constipation symptom score at 6 months.

Results: A total of 45 patients were randomized, of whom 29 (64.4%) were test-phase responders. Of these, 27 were implanted providing permanent SNS. During ePNE, seven (18%) were discriminate responders, 22 (56%) were indiscriminate responders and 10 (26%) were nonresponders. Six patients were withdrawn during the test phase because of infection or noncompliance. At 6 months, there was no significant difference in primary outcome between discriminate and indiscriminate responders (60 vs. 57%, P=0.76). The study was terminated prematurely because of a persistent infection rate of 10 (22%) during ePNE of which nine (20%) were severe.

Conclusion: ePNE is a poor predictor of treatment response at 6 months. This suggests a strong and persistent placebo response during both SNS PNE and treatment. An extended 6-week PNE poses a high risk of infection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources