Screening Method in Sacral Neuromodulation

NCT ID: NCT01130415

Last Updated: 2010-05-26

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

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

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

64 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2002-05-31

Study Completion Date

2009-07-31

Brief Summary

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

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there is a difference in long-term outcome between patients screened with the percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) and first stage tined lead procedure (TLP).

Detailed Description

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

Purpose: To evaluate if there is a difference in long-term outcome of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) between patients screened with the percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) and first stage tined lead procedure (TLP). Furthermore, we wanted to evaluate the outcome in patients who only responded to screening with TLP after failure of initial PNE.

Materials and methods: We evaluated all patients screened for eligibility to receive SNM treatment since the introduction of the tined lead technique in our centre in 2002. In May 2009, all implanted patients were asked to keep a voiding diary to record the effect of SNM on urinary symptoms. Success was defined as more than 50% improvement in at least one of the relevant voiding diary parameters compared to baseline. Chi square analysis was used to evaluate differences in long-term outcome for the separate screening methods.

Results: In total, 92 patients were screened for SNM. Of the 76 patients who were screened with PNE, 35 (46%) met the criteria for permanent implantation, whereas 11 of the 16 patients (69%) who underwent direct screening with TLP had permanent stimulators placed. Of the 41 patients who failed PNE and subsequently underwent screening with TLP, 18 (44%) were implanted with an INS after showing a successful response. The mean follow-up was 53 months (range 35-77 months) at the time of voiding diary analysis. Statistical analysis showed no difference between type of screening and long-term success (p=0.94).

Conclusion: Although first stage TLP is a more reliable screening tool than PNE, the long-term success rate does not seem to be dependent on the screening method. Furthermore, patients who initially failed PNE but responded to prolonged screening with TLP, appear to be at least as successful in the long-term as patients who directly responded to PNE or TLP.

Conditions

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

Overactive Bladder Urinary Retention

Study Design

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

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

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

Patients treated with sacral neuromodulation

No interventions assigned to this group

Eligibility Criteria

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

Inclusion Criteria

* patients who have been treated for overactive bladder syndrome or chronic non-obstructive urinary retention with sacral neuromodulation by using the tined lead

Exclusion Criteria

* patients with bilateral implantation of a tined lead
* patients who have been treated with sacral neuromodulation for pelvic pain
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

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

Scientific Foundation Urology Maastricht

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

Maastricht University Medical Center

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

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

Maastricht University Medical Centre

Principal Investigators

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

Philip van Kerrebroeck, Prof

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Maastricht University Medical Center

Locations

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

Maastricht University Medical Centre

Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands

Site Status

Countries

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

Netherlands

Other Identifiers

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

1234

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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