International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 1205–1213 | Cite as

Impact of staged InterStim® implantation on the postoperative activities of daily living and pain

  • Amie Kawasaki
  • John P. Judd
  • Nazema Y. Siddiqui
  • Jennifer M. Wu
  • Cindy L. Amundsen
Original Article
  • 179 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the short-term effects of staged InterStim® implantation on activities of daily living (ADL) and pain.

Methods

This prospective study assessed women undergoing staged InterStim® implantation. The Older Americans Resources and Services Program Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire asked participants about their ability to complete activities without help or what help they needed following stage I lead placement and stage II neurostimulator implantation. Narcotic use and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were recorded daily.

Results

Thirty-eight women underwent stage I with 33 (86.8 %) progressing to stage II. On stage I postoperative day (POD) 2, more women required help shopping compared with baseline (40 vs 17 %, p < 0.004). The median pain score increased on Stage I POD1 (P < 0.001) and the use of narcotics increased on POD1 and 2 compared with baseline (50 % vs 14 %, p = 0.001). The same trends were seen following stage II.

Conclusions

Staged InterStim® implantation has minimal impact on ADL, pain or narcotic requirements.

Keywords

Sacral neuromodulation InterStim Activities of daily living Electrical stimulation Implanted device 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Jean Maynor, RN, for her effort in participant recruitment and data collection.

Financial disclaimer

Thomas Benson Award in Neuromodulation American Urogynecologic Society

Funding

Thomas Benson Award in Neuromodulation, American Urogynecologic Society

Conflict of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Amend B, Khalil M, Kessler TM, Sievert KD (2011) How does sacral modulation work best? Placement and programming techniques to maximize efficacy. Curr Urol Rep 12(5):327–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oerlemans DJ, van Kerrebroeck PE (2008) Sacral nerve stimulation for neuromodulation of the lower urinary tract. Neurourol Urodyn 27(1):28–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leng WW, Chancellor MB (2005) How sacral nerve stimulation neuromodulation works. Urol Clin North Am 32(1):11–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foster RT Sr, Anoia EJ, Webster GD, Amundsen CL (2007) 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 26(2):213–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Kerrebroeck PE, van Voskuilen AC, Heesakkers JP, Nijholt AA La, Siegel S, Jonas U, Fowler CJ, Fall M, Gajewski JB, Hassouna MM, Cappellano F, Elhilali MM, Milam DF, Das AK, Dijkema HE, van den Hombergh U (2007) Results of sacral neuromodulation therapy for urinary voiding dysfunction: outcomes of a prospective, worldwide clinical study. J Urol 178(5):2029–2034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Das AK, Carlson AM, Hull M (2004) Improvement in depression and health-related quality of life after sacral nerve stimulation therapy for treatment of voiding dysfunction. Urology 64(1):62–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Amundsen CL (2010) Efficacy and adverse events of sacral nerve stimulation for overactive bladder: a systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn 29 [Suppl 1]:S18–S23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siegel SW, Catanzaro F, Dijkema HE, Elhilali MM, Fowler CJ, Gajewski JB, Hassouna MM, Janknegt RA, Jonas U, van Kerrebroeck PE, Lycklama a Nijeholt AA, Oleson KA, Schmidt RA (2000) Long-term results of a multicenter study on sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of urinary urge incontinence, urgency-frequency, and retention. Urology 56 [6 Suppl 1]:87–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    George LK, Fillenbaum GG (1985) OARS methodology. A decade of experience in geriatric assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc 33(9):607–615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R (2005) Older people specific health status and quality of life: a structured review of self-assessed instruments. J Eval Clin Pract 11(4):315–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jensen MP, Chen C, Brugger AM (2003) Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: a reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. J Pain 4(7):407–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim L, Chow P, Wong CY, Chung A, Chan YH, Wong WK, Soo KC (2011) Doctor-patient communication, knowledge, and question prompt lists in reducing preoperative anxiety: a randomized control study. Asian J Surg 34(4):175–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diez-Alvarez E, Arrospide A, Mar J, Alvarez U, Belaustegi A, Lizaur B, Larranaga A, Arana JM (2012) Effectiveness of pre-operative education in reducing anxiety in surgical patients. Enferm Clin 22(1):18–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shuldham C (1999) A review of the impact of pre-operative education on recovery from surgery. Int J Nurs Stud 36(2):171–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Droogan J, Dickson R (1996) Pre-operative patient instruction: is it effective? Nurs Stand 10(35):32–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amie Kawasaki
    • 1
  • John P. Judd
    • 1
  • Nazema Y. Siddiqui
    • 1
  • Jennifer M. Wu
    • 1
  • Cindy L. Amundsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations