MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129699362 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0b013e31822155e9

Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence

2011· article· en· W2129699362 on OpenAlex
Anders Mellgren, Steven D. Wexner, John A. Coller, Ghislain Devroede, Darin R. Lerew, Robert D. Madoff, Tracy L. Hull

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFecal incontinenceSacral nerve stimulationUrinary incontinenceProspective cohort studySurgeryStimulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Sacral nerve stimulation is effective in the treatment of urinary incontinence and is currently under Food and Drug Administration review in the United States for fecal incontinence. Previous reports have focused primarily on short-term results of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. The present study reports the long-term effectiveness and safety of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence in a large prospective multicenter study. DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with fecal incontinent episodes more than twice per week were offered participation in this multicentered prospective trial. Patients showing ≥ 50% improvement during test stimulation were offered chronic implantation of the InterStim Therapy system (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN). The aims of the current report were to provide 3-year follow-up data on patients from that study who underwent sacral nerve stimulation and were monitored under the rigors of an Food and Drug Administration-approved investigational protocol. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients underwent test stimulation with a 90% success rate, of whom 120 (110 females) with a mean age of 60.5 years and a mean duration of fecal incontinence of 7 years received chronic implantation. Mean length of follow-up was 3.1 (range, 0.2-6.1) years, with 83 patients completing all or part of the 3-year follow-up assessment. At 3 years follow-up, 86% of patients (P < .0001) reported ≥ 50% reduction in the number of incontinent episodes per week compared with baseline and the number of incontinent episodes per week decreased from a mean of 9.4 at baseline to 1.7. Perfect continence was achieved in 40% of subjects. The therapy also improved the fecal incontinence severity index. Sacral nerve stimulation had a positive impact on the quality of life, as evidenced by significant improvements in all 4 scales of the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life instrument at 12, 24, and 36 months of follow-up. The most common device- or therapy-related adverse events through the mean 36 months of follow-up included implant site pain (28%), paresthesia (15%), change in the sensation of stimulation (12%), and infection (10%). There were no reported unanticipated adverse device effects associated with sacral nerve stimulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral nerve stimulation using InterStim Therapy is a safe and effective treatment for patients with fecal incontinence. These data support long-term safety and effectiveness to 36 months.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it