Understanding a decade of safety reporting for sacral neuromodulation in the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionOver 350 000 sacral neuromodulation (SNM) devices have been implanted since approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998. SNM technology and clinical applications have evolved, with minimal safety updates after initial trials. We aim to provide an updated overview of real‐world SNM safety. These insights will guide informed consent, preoperative counseling, and patient expectation‐setting.Materials and MethodsThe FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database is a repository for medical device safety reports. We performed MAUDE categorical (1/1/98‐12/31/10) and keyword (1/1/11‐9/30/21) searches for “Interstim.” A random sample of 1000 reports was reviewed and categorized by theme. To corroborate our MAUDE database analysis, a legal librarian searched the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database, as well as Bloomberg Law's dockets database for all lawsuits related to SNM devices.ResultsOur search of the MAUDE database returned 44 122 SNM‐related adverse events (AEs). The figure illustrates the prevalence of event categories in the random sample. The largest proportion of reports (25.6%) related to a patient's need for assistance with device use, followed by loss/change of efficacy (19.0%). Interestingly, a fall preceded issue onset in 32% of non‐shock pain, 30% of lead/device migration, and 27% of painful shock reports. Our legal search revealed only four lawsuits: one for patient complications after an SNM device was used off‐label, one case of transverse myelitis after implant, one for device migration or poor placement, and the fourth claimed the device malfunctioned requiring removal and causing permanent injury.ConclusionsThis review confirms the real‐world safety of SNM devices and very low complication rates as seen in the original clinical trials. Our findings indicate that 43.2% (95% confidence interval 40.1%–46.3%) of SNM “complications” are not AEs, per se, but rather reflect a need for improved technical support or more comprehensive informed consent to convey known device limitations to the patient, such as battery life. Similarly, the number of lawsuits is shockingly low for a device that has been in the market for 24 years, reinforcing the safety of the device. Legal cases involving SNM devices seem to relate to inappropriate patient selection—including at least one case in which SNM was used for a non‐FDA approved indication—lack of appropriate follow‐up, and/or provider inability to assist the patient with utilizing the device after implantation.