Medium-term outcome of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in the treatment of fecal incontinence
Fecal incontinence (FI) is a multifactorial disease that affects patients’ quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in the treatment of FI and to assess the medium-term results.
A prospective cohort of patients with FI treated with PTNS between 2012 and 2014 was analysed. Endoluminal ultrasound and anorectal physiologic studies were performed in all patients. The efficacy of PTNS was assessed using a validated questionnaire (Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score) at baseline, after treatment, and 2 years later. The Vaizey score was also used at 2-year follow-up to assess urge incontinence.
Fifty-six patients (38 females; mean age 59.7 years) with FI were treated. The causes of FI were mainly obstetric injury and previous colorectal surgery. A decrease of 50% from baseline CCIS was seen in 41.1% of patients after PTNS. One-third maintained a minimum of 50% decrease of their initial CCIS after 2 years. Comparing CCIS at baseline, after treatment, and at 2-year follow-up, a statistically significant difference was observed (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0004 respectively). Medium-term improvement was not maintained in patients with passive and mixed FI, while it was maintained in those with urge incontinence. At 2 years, patients with mild incontinence maintained the greatest response.
PTNS is a safe, effective, non-invasive treatment for FI with good results in almost half of the patients at the end of the treatment. There is also an acceptable maintained response at 2-year follow-up. It seems to be most successful in patients with mild incontinence and urge incontinence.
KeywordsFecal incontinence Posterior tibial nerve stimulation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no commercial associations that might be a conflict of interest in relation to this article.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
- 8.Peña Ros E, Parra Baños PA, Benavides Buleje JA, Muñoz Camarena JM, Escamilla Segade C, Candel Arenas MF, Gonzalez Valverde FM, Albarracín Marín-Blázquez A (2016) Short-term outcome of percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) for the treatment of faecal incontinence. Tech Coloproctol 20(1):19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Knowles CH, Horrocks EJ, Bremner SA, Stevens N, Norton C, O’Connell PR (2015) Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham electrical stimulation for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults (CONFIDeNT): a double-blind, multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386(10004):1640–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.De la Portilla F, Rada R, Vega J, González CA, Cisneros N, Maldonado VH (2009) Evaluation of the use of posterior tibial nerve stimulation for the treatment of fecal incontinence: preliminary results of a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 52(8):1427–1433. https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181a7476a CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Van der Wilt AA, Giuliani G, Kubis C, van Wunnik BPW, Ferreira I, Breukink SO, Lehur PA, La Torre F, Baeten CGMI (2017) Randomized clinical trial of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham electrical stimulation in patients with faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 104(9):1167–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar