Abstract
Sacral neuromodulation/neurostimulation (SNM/SNS) has evolved to be central to the armamentarium for the treatment of fecal incontinence. Minimally invasive, it involves electrical stimulation of the sacral nerves by implanted pulse generator. Despite the fact that the exact mechanisms of action and the involved neural pathways are not yet fully understood, SNM has gained wide acceptance among colorectal surgeons. Reasons for this are manifold: its potential to influence several factors contributing to the maintenance of continence, the availability of a reliable pre-implant test, very low surgical risk and comorbidity, a sustained clinical benefit, and a wide range of indications for conditions leading to fecal incontinence. In fact, fecal incontinence of any etiology (except complete spinal cord injury) and any severity has been treated successfully. A quarter century after its introduction in coloproctology, studies on the long-term outcome confirm SNM’s reliability and effectiveness, resulting not only in an improvement in clinical symptoms but also in quality of life.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
FormalPara Learning Objectives-
Understand the technique of sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence
-
Understand the indication and patient selection of SNM for FI
-
Understand the outcome of SNM for FI
-
Understand the role of SNM for FI in the current treatment algorithm of FI
1 Introduction
Sacral neuromodulation (SNM)/neurostimulation (SNS) is a minimally invasive treatment for functional disorders of the pelvic floor, particularly urinary and fecal incontinence. By stimulating sacral spinal nerves, central and peripheral neural control of these functions is affected, and residual anorectal function is recruited.
The introduction of SNM into clinical practice in coloproctology [1] represents a paradigm shift in the treatment of fecal incontinence: before this, any attempt to correct fecal incontinence aimed to modify sphincter function by narrowing the anal canal or reinforcing the anal sphincters. There was no possibility of affecting other physiological functions influencing continence. Also, SNM has the unique advantage over other techniques in that it offers a reliable trial stimulation that can identify patients who will respond to permanent stimulation therapy.
2 Technique and Its Evolution
The procedure has evolved since its introduction. The original technique entailed a presacral incision to identify the sacral foramen for insertion of the electrode implant and suture fixation of the electrode to the periosteum under general anesthesia. The technique became less invasive with the introduction of a percutaneous Seldinger-like positioning for electrode placement, performed under fluoroscopy. This modified technique can be performed under either general or local anesthesia.
Recently the technique has been revisited, modified, and standardized with the objective of reducing the risk of suboptimal implants [2]. The current technique involves intraoperative imaging and the use of a curved stylet for electrode placement (Fig. 40.1). Fluoroscopy clarifies the location of electrode insertion by identifying the medial edges of the sacral foramina and the distal edges of the sacroiliac joint (H-sign) (Fig. 40.2). It helps to determine the depth of electrode insertion (Fig. 40.3) and the direction of placement. A curved, less rigid stylet adds another degree of electrode reach and facilitates placement along the natural path of the sacral spinal nerves in the pelvis. The positioning of the electrode is always determined by the pattern and intensity of a motor or sensory response to stimulation, the intensity of applied stimulation, and the radiographic appearance of the implanted electrode. Ideally, all four contacts of the electrode should be positioned close to and parallel with the target nerve, which runs in a caudolateral direction after exiting the ventral opening of the foramen. This offers the greatest number of programming options for permanent stimulation with the least energy consumption—and thus battery longevity and the lowest likelihood of negative side effects [2].
The SNM procedure consists of a test phase to determine clinical effectiveness and, in case of a successful test, chronic therapeutic stimulation. The test phase entails percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) with either temporary electrodes (one or more easily placed monopolar flexible electrodes (Medtronic InterStim® 3059, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA)) or the so-called quadripolar tined lead [2] (Medtronic InterStim® 3889, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). The first option offers the possibility of testing more than one sacral spinal nerve and is less invasive and expensive. These electrodes are easily removable; however, if test stimulation is successful, insertion of a tined lead is required for chronic stimulation. The latter option, the tined lead, is less prone to dislodgement [3] and can remain and be connected to the fully implantable pulse generator (Medtronic InterStim® II, 3058, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), which will be implanted if during the test phase a 50% symptom improvement is achieved. For the test stimulation phase (typically 2 weeks), both types of electrode are connected to an external pulse generator (Fig. 40.4), and the patient documents bowel habits and incontinence frequency by diary. The indication for chronic therapeutic stimulation is based on the degree of symptom improvement.
For both test and chronic stimulation with the fully implanted system (Fig. 40.5), the parameters are set in cooperation with the awake patient. They are determined by the perception of stimulation, the required intensity, and the presence of side effects. The temporary electrodes allow only unipolar stimulation and the tined lead electrode only bipolar stimulation; chronic stimulation with an implanted tined lead and pulse generator can be uni- or bipolar. The stimulation setting should be comfortable and free of side effects. Most commonly, suprasensory threshold stimulation is used, although a subsensory threshold can also be effective [4]. Patients are able to adjust the parameters within a preset range with a handheld programmer. Adjustments to the programming parameters may be required.
Over time the implantable pulse generator has been reduced in size and its features improved, resulting in greater comfort and safer implantation, especially in underweight patients with thin subcutaneous tissue. The programmer has also improved in performance and ease of use.
3 Mechanism of Action
The mechanism of action of SNM is not yet entirely understood. It appears to modulate peripheral and central nervous functions. The original concept—that it worked predominately by improving anal sphincter function [5]—has not been confirmed [6]. A sphincter contraction can be induced by SNS during electrode placement, but this has been shown to be the result of a polysynaptic reflex rather than a direct activation of the alpha-motoneurons [7] and, when present, is not sufficient to fully explain the restored continence. Improved anorectal sensation seems to play a major role in the control of continence. An intact ascending neural pathway to the central nervous system (CNS) is also needed, as one of the contraindications for SNM is complete spinal cord injury [8]. To what extent colonic motor function is affected remains controversial, as the lack of consistent data does not permit a firm conclusion. Increasing evidence indicates that SNM’s effect is not limited to the anorectum per se but that it appears to modulate areas of the CNS associated with storage and evacuation, most likely via stimulation of the afferent sensory nerve fibers [9]. The effects on the CNS have been investigated mostly in patients with urinary incontinence; positron emission tomography (PET) [10] has demonstrated that, via the spinal cord, SNS influences some brain areas involved in alertness and awareness, leading to a reduced excitability of some areas of the cortex [11].The effect of temporary stimulation on the CNS appears to differ from that of chronic stimulation [12].
4 Indications
No physiological predictors of outcome exist. Thus, the indications for implantation of the permanent device are based on the clinical outcome of test stimulation. Initially, SNM was limited to fecal incontinence in the presence of a morphologically intact anal sphincter. However, based both on the awareness that stimulation’s effect is not limited to the sphincters and on the experience of a highly predictive positive test, a progressive broadening of the indications has occurred. Today a wide spectrum of causes of fecal incontinence is successfully treated with SNM. The procedure has also been extended to other pelvic organ/floor disorders, such as constipation [13]. A pragmatic trial and error concept—in which the indication for test stimulation is not based solely on specific pathophysiological or pathomorphological criteria—has demonstrated that SNM may be effective for fecal incontinence caused by external anal sphincter damage [14,15,16], radiation [17], rectal prolapse repair [18], Crohn’s disease [19], partial spinal lesions [20], and cauda equina [21], several neurological diseases (such as muscular dystrophy and systemic sclerosis) [22, 23], and also low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) [24, 25]. The association of fecal incontinence with other pelvic floor dysfunctions such as urinary incontinence or retention is a further area for application [26, 27].
A placebo effect has been addressed in a double-blind randomized crossover trial [28].
Multiple guidelines and recommendations (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] [29], American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons [ASCRS] [30], International Consultation on Incontinence [ICI] [31], French [32] and Italian [33]) confirm the clinical efficacy of SNM and consider it to be one of the first-line surgical interventions for fecal incontinence of varied etiology. The positioning of SNM in the treatment algorithm is central (Fig. 40.5 ICI Algo). A limited number of surgical alternatives such as sphincteroplasty exist, but they are suitable for a far more limited spectrum of etiologies (Fig. 40.6).
The list of specific contraindications for SNM is limited to conditions not allowing adequate electrode placement, such as anorectal/sacral malformations, complete spinal cord transection, septic conditions in the field of operation (pilonidal sinus), pregnancy, mental or physical inability to adhere to treatment, and the need for MRT (the current version of the implant is only conditionally safe for 1.5 T MRT head coil).
5 Prognostic Factors of Outcome
Any attempt to identify factors statistically predictive of a successful outcome to temporary and chronic stimulation has failed. At present no clinical factors (patient features, etiology of incontinence, motor or sensory response to test stimulation) or preoperative laboratory investigations (anal manometry, electrophysiological tests, etc.) have convincingly demonstrated prognostic value [34,35,36,37], either for the test phase or for chronic stimulation [38]. Recently, a retrospective study reported that patients with fecal incontinence and concomitant high-grade internal rectal prolapse (Oxford Grade 3 and 4) have a poorer clinical outcome to chronic SNM [39].
6 Outcome
Since the introduction of SNM in coloproctology [1], outcome reports have accumulated (Tables 40.1 and 40.2), some focusing on its long-term efficacy [40,41,42,43,44, 50, 61,62,63]. Most patients treated with chronic SNM experience a sustained clinical improvement regardless of the underlying etiology [50], with reported follow-up of up to 18 years [61]. The long-term results are favorable when compared with those of other surgical techniques such as sphincteroplasty. The clinical benefit is not limited to symptom reduction or relief but also to quality of life: a significant improvement has been repeatedly demonstrated in short-, mid-, and long-term outcome studies that used both general health (SF-36) and disease-specific questionnaires such as the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (FIQLS) [41, 44,45,46, 63,64,65].
7 Future Directions
SNM is a well-established treatment option for fecal incontinence. Its role in the current treatment is central. Future development will most likely include a modifications of the applied stimulation device (miniaturization) and its handling (programming, interface). With the availability of a test stimulation phase, which is highly predictive of the clinical effectiveness if it leads to a positive clinical outcome during the test phase, the spectrum will of application will expand further.
Take-Home Messages
SNM develop to be the central treatment modality for surgical therapy of fecal incontinence. A broad spectrum of etiologies leading to fecal incontinence can be treated successfully. The patient selection is pragmatic and based on the outcome of a timely limited test stimulation phase. The chronic stimulation results in long-term symptom improvement and improved quality of life.
References
Matzel KE, Stadelmaier U, Hohenfellner M, Gall FP. Electrical stimulation of sacral spinal nerves for treatment of faecal incontinence. Lancet. 1995;346:1124–7.
Matzel KE, Chartier-Kastler E, Knowles CH, et al. Sacral neuromodulation: standardized electrode placement technique. Neuromodulation. 2017;20:816–24.
Ratto C, Morelli U, Paparo S, et al. Minimally invasive sacral neuromodulation implant technique: modifications to the conventional procedure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:414–7.
Duelund-Jakobsen J, Buntzen S, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation at subsensory threshold does not compromise treatment efficacy: results from a randomized, blinded crossover study. Ann Surg. 2013;257:219–23.
Rosen HR, Urbarz C, Holzer B, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation as a treatment for fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology. 2001;121:536–41.
Michelsen HB, Buntzen S, Krogh K, Laurberg S. Rectal volume tolerability and anal pressures in patients with fecal incontinence treated with sacral nerve stimulation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:1039–44.
Fowler CJ, Swinn MJ, Goodwin RJ, et al. Studies of the latency of pelvic floor contraction during peripheral nerve evaluation show that the muscle response is reflexly mediated. J Urol. 2000;163:881–3.
Goldman HB, Lloyd JC, Noblett KL, et al. International Continence Society best practice statement for use of sacral neuromodulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:1823–48.
Carrington EV, Evers J, Grossi U, et al. A systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation mechanisms in the treatment of fecal incontinence and constipation. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;26:1222–37.
Blok BF, Groen J, Bosch JL, et al. Different brain effects during chronic and acute sacral neuromodulation in urge incontinent patients with implanted neurostimulators. BJU Int. 2006;98:1238–43.
Sheldon R, Kiff ES, Clarke A, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation reduces corticoanal excitability in patients with faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1423–31.
Lundby L, Møller A, Buntzen S, et al. Relief of fecal incontinence by sacral nerve stimulation linked to focal brain activation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:318–23.
Mowatt G, Glazener C, Jarrett M. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence and constipation in adults: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27:155–61.
Conaghan P, Farouk R. Sacral nerve stimulation can be successful in patients with ultrasound evidence of external anal sphincter disruption. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1610–4.
Melenhorst J, Koch SM, Uludag O, et al. Is a morphologically intact anal sphincter necessary for success with sacral nerve modulation in patients with faecal incontinence? Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:257–62.
Jarrett ME, Dudding TC, Nicholls RJ, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence related to obstetric anal sphincter damage. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:531–7.
di Visconte MS, Munegato G. The value of sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence after pelvic radiotherapy. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:1111–2.
Jarrett ME, Matzel KE, Stösser M, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence following surgery for rectal prolapse repair: a multicenter study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:1243–8.
Vitton V, Gigout J, Grimaud JC, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation can improve continence in patients with Crohn’s disease with internal and external anal sphincter disruption. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:924–7.
Jarrett ME, Matzel KE, Christiansen J, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence in patients with previous partial spinal injury including disc prolapse. Br J Surg. 2005;92:734–9.
Gstaltner K, Rosen H, Hufgard J, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation as an option for the treatment of faecal incontinence in patients suffering from cauda equina syndrome. Spinal Cord. 2008;46:644–7.
Kenefick NJ, Vaizey CJ, Nicholls RJ, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence due to systemic sclerosis. Gut. 2002;51:881–3.
Buntzen S, Rasmussen OO, Ryhammer AM, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of fecal incontinence in a patient with muscular dystrophy: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1409–11.
Schwandner O. Sacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence and “low anterior resection syndrome” following neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28:665–9.
Ramage L, Qiu S, Kontovounisios C, et al. A systematic review of sacral nerve stimulation for low anterior resection syndrome. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:762–71.
Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Petrolino M, et al. Permanent sacral nerve modulation for fecal incontinence and associated urinary disturbances. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2004;19:203–9.
Leroi AM, Michot F, Grise P, Denis P. Effect of sacral nerve stimulation in patients with fecal and urinary incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:779–89.
Leroi AM, Parc Y, Lehur PA, et al. Efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: results of a multicenter double-blind crossover study. Ann Surg. 2005;242:662–9.
NICE: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg99
Paquette IM, Varma MG, Kaiser AM, et al. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons’ clinical practice guideline for the treatment of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58:623–36.
Matzel KE. Fecal Incontinence. Seite 87–102. In: Herold A, Lehur PA, Matzel KE, O’Connell PR, editors. EMM coloproctology. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2017, ISBN 978-3-662-53208-9.
Vitton V, Soudan D, Siproudhis L, et al. Treatments of faecal incontinence: recommendations from the French national society of coloproctology. Colorectal Dis. 2014;16:159–66.
Falletto E, Ganio E, Naldini G, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for bowel dysfunction: a consensus statement from the Italian group. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18:53–64.
Gallas S, Michot F, Faucheron JL, et al. Predictive factors for successful sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence: results of trial stimulation in 200 patients. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:689–96.
Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Lobascio PL, et al. Factors affecting the outcome of temporary sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. The value of the new tined lead electrode. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:198–202.
Govaert B, Melenhorst J, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG. Can sensory and/or motor reactions during percutaneous nerve evaluation predict outcome of sacral nerve modulation? Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1423–6.
Vallet C, Parc Y, Lupinacci R, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: response rate, satisfaction and the value of preoperative investigation in patient selection. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:247–53.
Dudding TC, Parés D, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA. Predictive factors for successful sacral nerve stimulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence: a 10-year cohort analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10:249–56.
Prapasrivorakul S, Gosselink MP, Gorissen KJ, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for faecal incontinence: is the outcome compromised in patients with high-grade internal rectal prolapse? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30:229–34.
Uludag O, Koch SM, van Gemert WG, et al. Sacral neuromodulation in patients with fecal incontinence: a single-center study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;47:1350–7.
MelenhorstJ KSM, Uludag O, et al. Sacral neuromodulation in patients with faecal incontinence: results of the first 100 permanent implantations. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9:725–30.
Dudding TC, Meng Lee E, Faiz O, et al. Economic evaluation of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1155–63.
Tjandra JJ, Chan MK, Yeh CH, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation is more effective than optimal medical therapy for severe fecal incontinence: a randomized, controlled study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:494–502.
Altomare DF, Ratto C, Ganio E, et al. Long-term outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:11–7.
Michelsen HB, Thompson-Fawcett M, Lundby L, et al. Six years of experience with sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:414–21.
Hollingshead JR, Dudding TC, Vaizey CJ. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: results from a single centre over a 10 year period. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:1030–4.
Uludag O, Melenhorst J, Koch SM, et al. Sacral neuromodulation: long-term outcome and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:1162–6.
Duelund-Jakobsen J, van Wunnik B, Buntzen S, et al. Functional results and patient satisfaction with sacral nerve stimulation for idiopathic faecal incontinence. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:753–9.
Hull T, Giese C, Wexner SD, et al. Long-term durability of sacral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:234–45.
Altomare DF, Giuratrabocchetta S, Knowles CH, et al. Long-term outcomes of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2015;102:407–15.
Janssen PT, Kuiper SZ, Stassen LP, et al. Fecal incontinence treated by sacral neuromodulation: Long-term follow-up of 325 patients. Surgery. 2017;161:1040–8.
Thin NN, Horrocks EJ, Hotouras A, et al. Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of neuromodulation in the treatment of faecal incontinence. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1430–47.
Brouwer R, Duthie G. Sacral nerve neuromodulation is effective treatment for fecal incontinence in the presence of a sphincter defect, pudendal neuropathy, or previous sphincter repair. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:273–8.
Faucheron JL, Voirin D, Badic B. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: causes of surgical revision from a series of 87 consecutive patients operated on in a single institution. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:1501–7.
Lim JT, Hastie IA, Hiscock RJ. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: long-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;54:969–74.
Wong MT, Meurette G, Rodat F, et al. Outcome and management of patients in whom sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence failed. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:425–32.
Faucheron JL, Chodez M, Boillot B. Neuromodulation for fecal and urinary incontinence: functional results in 57 consecutive patients from a single institution. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:1278–83.
Damon H, Barth X, Roman S, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence improves symptoms, quality of life and patients’ satisfaction: results of a monocentric series of 119 patients. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28:227–33.
Maeda Y, Lundby L, Buntzen S, et al. Outcome of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence at 5 years. Ann Surg. 2014;259:1126–31.
Duelund-Jakobsen J, Lehur PA, Lundby L, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence – efficacy confirmed from a two-centre prospectively maintained database. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31:421–8.
Matzel KE, Lux P, Heuer S, et al. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: long term outcome. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:636–41.
El-Gazzaz G, Zutshi M, Salcedo L, et al. Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence and urinary incontinence in female patients: long-term follow-up. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:1377–81.
Hetzer FH, Hahnloser D, Clavien PA, Demartines N. Quality of life and morbidity after permanent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Arch Surg. 2007;142:8–13.
Ripetti V, Caputo D, Ausania F, et al. Sacral nerve neuromodulation improves physical, psychological and social quality of life in patients with fecal incontinence. Tech Coloproctol. 2002;6:147–52.
Tan E, Ngo NT, Darzi A, et al. Meta-analysis: sacral nerve stimulation versus conservative therapy in the treatment of faecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:275–94.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Matzel, K.E., Bittorf, B. (2021). Sacral Neuromodulation for Fecal Incontinence. In: Santoro, G.A., Wieczorek, A.P., Sultan, A.H. (eds) Pelvic Floor Disorders. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40862-6_40
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40862-6_40
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40861-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40862-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)