Introduction and Objectives: Technology has brought about changes to the sacral neuromodulation (SNM) therapy and has rendered it as a minimally invasive procedure. The presence of tined lead, smaller implantable pulse generator, and the different available patient programmers are the factors new modifications this procedure; however, no enough data are available about patient satisfaction comparing these different parameters. We therefore conducted our study among SNM-implanted patients, assessing factors affecting long-term satisfaction. Patients and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study with a survey questionnaire for all SNM-implanted patients from December 2011 to May 2012. The survey questionnaire included information on patient demographics, level of satisfaction, and the need for combined medical therapy for symptom control, type of programmer used by patient, and their ability to use it efficiently. Results: A total of 117 patients visited the clinic in that duration, and 71 patients filled up the survey questionnaire, with a response rate of 60.7%, diagnosis OAB 41 (57.7%), chronic non-obstructive retention 15 (21.1%) and frequency-urgency syndrome 15 (21.1%). Forty-nine (69%) of patients were on SNM therapy alone, while 31% patients needed other forms of therapy for symptoms control. The types of patient programmers used were old programmers in 10 (14.1%), new programmers in 44 (62%), and twin programmers in 4 patients. Patient SNM therapy satisfaction level was 95.8%, while 3 patients (4.2%) were not satisfied. SNM therapy satisfaction showed that it was correlated with the need for combined therapy for symptoms control (correlation coefficient 0.341, p value = 0.004), but there was no correlation with age, duration of therapy, complication, or programmer type. Conclusion: SNM satisfaction in patients is mainly correlated with the need for additional medications for symptom control.

1.
Hassouna MM, Siegel SW, Nÿeholt AA, Elhilali MM, van Kerrebroeck PE, Das AK, et al. Sacral neuromodulation in the treatment of urgency-frequency symptoms: a multicenter study on efficacy and safety.
J Urol
. 2000 Jun;163(6):1849–54.
2.
Schmidt RA, Jonas U, Oleson KA, Janknegt RA, Hassouna MM, Siegel SW, et al.; Sacral Nerve Stimulation Study Group. Sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence.
J Urol
. 1999 Aug;162(2):352–7.
3.
van Kerrebroeck PE, van Voskuilen AC, Heesakkers JP, Lycklama á Nijholt AA, Siegel S, Jonas U, et al. Results of sacral neuromodulation therapy for urinary voiding dysfunction: outcomes of a prospective, worldwide clinical study.
J Urol
. 2007 Nov;178(5):2029–34.
4.
Weil EH, Ruiz-Cerdá JL, Eerdmans PH, Janknegt RA, Bemelmans BL, van Kerrebroeck PE. Sacral root neuromodulation in the treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence: a prospective randomized clinical trial.
Eur Urol
. 2000 Feb;37(2):161–71.
5.
Kenefick NJ, Nicholls RJ, Cohen RG, Kamm MA. Permanent sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of idiopathic constipation.
Br J Surg
. 2002 Jul;89(7):882–8.
6.
Leroi AM, Parc Y, Lehur PA, Mion F, Barth X, Rullier E, et al.; Study Group. Efficacy of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: results of a multicenter double-blind crossover study.
Ann Surg
. 2005 Nov;242(5):662–9.
7.
Cappellano F, Bertapelle P, Spinelli M, Catanzaro F, Carone R, Zanollo A, et al.; Italian Group of Sacral Neuromodulation (GINS). Quality of life assessment in patients who undergo sacral neuromodulation implantation for urge incontinence: an additional tool for evaluating outcome.
J Urol
. 2001 Dec;166(6):2277–80.
8.
Aboseif S, Tamaddon K, Chalfin S, Freedman S, Kaptein J. Sacral neuromodulation as an effective treatment for refractory pelvic floor dysfunction.
Urology
. 2002 Jul;60(1):52–6.
9.
Sutherland SE, Lavers A, Carlson A, Holtz C, Kesha J, Siegel SW. Sacral nerve stimulation for voiding dysfunction: one institution’s 11-year experience.
Neurourol Urodyn
. 2007;26(1):19–28.
10.
Banakhar M, Hassouna M. Percutaneous nerve evaluation test versus staged test trials for sacral neuromodulation: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of each technique.
Int Neurourol J
. 2016 Sep;20(3):250–4.
11.
Banakhar M, Hassouna M. Sacral neuromodulation for genitourinary problems.
Prog Neurol Surg
. 2015;29:192–9.
12.
Banakhar M, Gazwani Y, Kelini ME, et al. Effect of sacral neuromodulation on female sexual function and quality of life: are they correlated?
Can Urol Assoc J
2014 Nov;8(11-12):E762–7.
13.
Banakhar MA, Al-Shaiji T, Hassouna M. Sacral neuromodulation and refractory overactive bladder: an emerging tool for an old problem.
Ther Adv Urol
. 2012 Aug;4(4):179–85.
14.
Al-Shaiji TF, Banakhar M, Hassouna MM. Pelvic electrical neuromodulation for the treatment of overactive bladder symptoms.
Adv Urol
. 2011;2011:757454.
15.
Foster RT Sr, Anoia EJ, Webster GD, Amundsen CL. In patients undergoing neuromodulation for intractable urge incontinence a reduction in 24-hr pad weight after the initial test stimulation best predicts long-term patient satisfaction.
Neurourol Urodyn
. 2007;26(2):213–7.
16.
Damon H, Barth X, Roman S, Mion F. Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence improves symptoms, quality of life and patients’ satisfaction: results of a monocentric series of 119 patients.
Int J Colorectal Dis
. 2013 Feb;28(2):227–33.
17.
Duelund-Jakobsen J, van Wunnik B, Buntzen S, Lundby L, Baeten C, Laurberg S. Functional results and patient satisfaction with sacral nerve stimulation for idiopathic faecal incontinence.
Colorectal Dis
. 2012 Jun;14(6):753–9.
18.
Leong RK, Marcelissen TA, Nieman FH, De Bie RA, Van Kerrebroeck PE, De Wachter SG. Satisfaction and patient experience with sacral neuromodulation: results of a single center sample survey.
J Urol
. 2011 Feb;185(2):588–92.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.