Systematic review of tibial nerve stimulation to treat faecal incontinence

Author:

Horrocks E J1,Thin N1,Thaha M A1,Taylor S J C2,Norton C3,Knowles C H1

Affiliation:

1. National Centre for Bowel Research and Surgical Innovation and Queen Mary University London, UK

2. Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University London, UK

3. Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK

Abstract

Abstract Background Two forms of tibial nerve stimulation are used to treat faecal incontinence (FI): percutaneous (PTNS) and transcutaneous (TTNS) tibial nerve stimulation. This article critically appraises the literature on both procedures. Methods A systematic review was performed adhering to the PRISMA framework. A comprehensive literature search was conducted, with systematic methodological quality assessment and data extraction. Summary measures for individual outcome variables are reported. Results Twelve articles met eligibility criteria; six related to PTNS, five to TTNS, and one to both procedures. These included ten case series and two randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Case series were evaluated using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment for case series, scoring 3–6 of 8. RCTs were evaluated using the Jadad score, scoring 4 of a possible 5 marks, and the Cochrane Collaboration bias assessment tool. From one RCT and case series reports, the success rate of PTNS, based on the proportion of patients who achieved a reduction in weekly FI episodes of at least 50 per cent, was 63–82 per cent, and that of TTNS was 0–45 per cent. In an RCT of TTNSversus sham, no patient had a reduction in weekly FI episodes of 50 per cent or more, whereas in an RCT of PTNSversus TTNSversus sham, 82 per cent of patients undergoing PTNS, 45 per cent of those having TTNS, and 13 per cent of patients in the sham group had treatment success. Conclusion PTNS and TTNS result in significant improvements in some outcome measures; however, TTNS was not superior to sham stimulation in a large, adequately powered, RCT. As no adequate RCT of PTNSversus sham has been conducted, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding this treatment.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Surgery

Reference51 articles.

1. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence;Nelson;Gastroenterology,2004

2. Prevalence of faecal incontinence in adults aged 40 years or more living in the community;Perry;Gut,2002

3. The prevalence of faecal incontinence in older people living at home;Edwards;Age Ageing,2001

4. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction;Johanson;Am J Gastroenterol,1996

5. Faecal incontinence in adults;Madoff;Lancet,2004

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3