Su1650 – Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Slow Transit Constipation: A Randomized, Double Blind, Crossover Study

Lacima, Gloria; Espí, Alejandro; Soria, Víctor; Arroyo, Antonio; Muñoz-Duyos, Arantxa; Araujo, K A Isis; Pellicer, Enrique; Alcaide, María José; Pérez, Noelia García; Almenara, R; Minguez, Mara

doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(19)38389-1

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Full‐text reports of two conference abstracts were requested. For one no full‐text report was available [40]. The other was from our own research group.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation for idiopathic slow‐transit constipation: a systematic review

Heemskerk,

van der Wilt,

Penninx

et al. 2024

Colorectal Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimSacral neuromodulation (SNM) is a minimally invasive treatment option for functional constipation. Evidence regarding its effectiveness is contradictory, driven by heterogeneous study populations and designs. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of SNM in children and adults with refractory idiopathic slow‐transit constipation (STC).MethodOVID Medline, OVID Embase, Cochrane Library, the KSR Evidence Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the International HTA Database were searched up to 25 May 2023. For effectiveness outcomes, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected. For safety outcomes, all study designs were selected. For cost‐effectiveness outcomes, trial‐ and model‐based economic evaluations were selected for review. Study selection, risk of bias and quality assessment, and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. For the intervention ‘sacral neuromodulation’ effectiveness outcomes included defaecation frequency and constipation severity. Safety and cost‐effectiveness outcomes were, respectively, adverse events and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios.ResultsOf 1390 records reviewed, 67 studies were selected for full‐text screening. For effectiveness, one cross‐over and one parallel‐group RCT was included, showing contradictory results. Eleven studies on safety were included (four RCTs, three prospective cohort studies and four retrospective cohort studies). Overall infection rates varied between 0% and 22%, whereas reoperation rates varied between 0% and 29%. One trial‐based economic evaluation was included, which concluded that SNM was not cost‐effective compared with personalized conservative treatment at a time horizon of 6 months. The review findings are limited by the small number of available studies and the heterogeneity in terms of study populations, definitions of refractory idiopathic STC and study designs.ConclusionEvidence for the (cost‐)effectiveness of SNM in children and adults with refractory idiopathic STC is inconclusive. Reoperation rates of up to 29% were reported.

show abstract

“…Full‐text reports of two conference abstracts were requested. For one no full‐text report was available [40]. The other was from our own research group.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%