Comparison of Motor and Sensory Response With Interstim Stimulation

NCT ID: NCT00943904

Last Updated: 2021-10-06

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

31 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2009-07-31

Study Completion Date

2012-02-29

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) implantation is a minimally invasive procedure which has current FDA approval for urinary urge incontinence, urgency-frequency syndrome and non-obstructive urinary retention, and has been available in the United States since 1997. The SNS delivers non-painful, mild electrical pulses to the sacral nerves to modulate the reflexes that influence the bladder, sphincter, and pelvic floor to improve or restore normal voiding function. While SNS has been shown to have efficacy for the aforementioned conditions, the exact mechanism of action is unknown, but it is believed to work primarily through the somatic afferent system in promoting inhibitory reflex pathways to facilitate urine storage. The degree of stimulation is thought to be at a level that only evokes a sensory and not a motor response; however this has not been tested.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

SNS involves a two-stage procedure. The initial phase is considered the test stimulation period where the patient is allowed to evaluate whether or not the therapy is effective in controlling her symptoms. There are two techniques that exist in performing the test stimulation. The first is an office-based procedure termed the percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE). This involves placing a temporary electrode wire through the S3 sacral foramen under local anesthesia. The wire is secured with tape and connected to an external generator the patient wears for a trial period of 3-7 days. If patients have at least 50% improvement in their symptoms during the test phase, they are candidates for chronic implant of the lead and implantable pulse generator (IPG). The advantage of the PNE is that it is an incision free procedure performed in the office utilizing local anesthesia, and does not require hospitalization. The disadvantage comes from the fact that the wire is not securely anchored in place, and has the propensity to migrate away from the nerve with physical activity. The second alternative is known as a staged implant. This is typically performed as an outpatient procedure using local anesthesia, intravenous sedation, and intra-operative fluoroscopy. This procedure involves placement of the chronic quadripolar lead wire adjacent to a sacral nerve root (typically S3). The lead is self-anchoring and therefore reduces the potential for migration. The patient goes through a test phase that can last from 7-21 days. The advantage of this technique is that it allows for a longer trial period with minimal risk of lead migration. The chronic wire also has 4 electrodes that can each be trialed as the active electrode to achieve optimal improvement in patients' symptoms. In addition, during the 2nd stage, or final implant the previously placed tined-lead remains in place and is simply connected to the IPG. This eliminates the chance of variable lead placement from the test and implantation phases. The disadvantage of the staged implant is that it requires two visits to the operating room and may be more costly to the health care system. However, in a prospective study comparing the PNE to the staged implant, there was a significantly higher rate of conversion to implant with the staged procedure vs. the PNE (88% vs.46%). In addition, infection rates are not higher with the staged implant when compared to the PNE.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Overactive Bladder Urgency-Frequency

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NA

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Interstim stimulation

Patients who receive the interstim implant in order to evaluate effectiveness of treatment

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Interstim implant for SNS

Intervention Type DEVICE

stimulates third sacral nerve root

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Interstim implant for SNS

stimulates third sacral nerve root

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Sacral nerve Stimulation

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* You are eligible to participate in this study if:

* you are at least 18 years of age or older
* you have the capacity to give informed consent
* you are currently implanted with a functioning Interstim device for the treatment of urge urinary leakage or overactive bladder

* you have a history of an underlying neurologic disorder
* you are currently pregnant, or have an active urinary tract or vaginal infection

Exclusion Criteria

* You are not eligible to participate in this study if:
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of California, Irvine

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Karen Noblett

Division Director

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Karen Noblett, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of California, Irvine

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

UCI Women's Healthcare

Orange, California, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

2009-6799

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

InterStim Therapy Programming Study
NCT01009333 COMPLETED NA
InterStim® Amplitude Study
NCT03335761 COMPLETED NA