Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
    Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Aug;19(8):1137-40. doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0601-3. Epub 2008 Apr 5.

    Sacral neuromodulation reprogramming: is it an office burden?

    Source

    Department of Urology, William Beaumont Hospital, 3535 W. 13 Mile Road Suite 438, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA. frank.burks@hotmail.com

    Abstract

    Our objective was to evaluate the burden of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) reprogramming and the reasons for reprogramming, and to correlate these with the underlying diagnosis. A retrospective review of 50 consecutive subjects implanted with SNM was completed from November 2002 through December 2005. Of the 50 SNM implants, 47 subjects had adequate follow-up. The mean age was 53.1 (22-90 years) with 83% women. Of the SNM performed, 91.5% were done for urinary urgency, frequency, or incontinence and 47.4% of those had interstitial cystitis. Overall, 239 programming visits were recorded, and subjects on average had two reprogramming visits per year. There was no correlation with number of reprogramming events and patient age, sex, reason for implantation, or diagnosis. These data suggest that the number of reprogramming episodes is small, and the majority is done as part of routine follow-up. No additional burden was seen in subjects with interstitial cystitis.

    PMID:
    18392551
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

      Supplemental Content

      Save items

      Recent activity

      Your browsing activity is empty.

      Activity recording is turned off.

      Turn recording back on

      See more...
      Write to the Help Desk