Purpose: Results from early studies on sacral nerve stimulation are based on a stimulation electrode lead that was placed under direct vision during an open surgical procedure. A percutaneous inserted lead, introduced in 2002, is now widely used. This study was designed to investigate differences in clinical efficacy and adverse complications between the two methods of lead placement.
Methods: Prospectively collected data were analyzed for 48 patients who had undergone permanent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence at a single institution between 1997 and 2006. Eighteen patients had undergone open lead placement (Group 1) and 30 patients percutaneous lead placement (Group 2).
Results: Median follow-up was 51 (range, 22-106) months for Group 1 and 8 (range, 1-40) months for Group 2 patients. There was no difference in patient demographics, severity of incontinence, or physiologic parameters between the two groups. Lead type did not affect the outcome of chronic stimulation with reductions in total episodes of incontinence being similar between the two groups (P = 0.448). No difference in infection or lead dislocation rate between the two groups was identified.
Conclusions: The percutaneously inserted lead seems to be equal to the open inserted lead in terms of clinical efficacy and complication rate in the short-term.