Abstract
Background
Up to 7.5% of tined-lead removals in patients having sacral neuromodulation (SNM) therapy are associated with a lead breakage. It is still unclear what adverse effects can be caused by unretrieved fragments. The aim of our study was to describe the lead removal technique we have been using for the last 2 years in our centre.
Methods
We retrospectively enrolled patients who had lead removal between January 2018 and January 2020 using our standardized technique. The novelty of the technique is in the use of the straight stylet, which is available in the quadripolar tined-lead kit. The stylet gives the electrode greater stiffness, reducing interactions with surrounding tissues and probability of damage or breakage during removal.
Results
In 59 patients (42 women, mean age 57.2 years [range 40–79 years]) the lead was removed using our standardized technique. In 44 of 59 patients, the tined-lead was removed within 2 months from the SNM-test, due to lack of beneficial effects. In 15 patients the electrode was removed because of failure of definitive implantation. Meantime from definitive implantable pulse generator (IPG) implantation to lead removal was 67.9 months. We recorded only 1 case of lead-breakage during removal: a female patient with a non-tined lead fixed on sacral bone, placed 18 years previously using an open technique.
Conclusions
Lead breakage during removal is not uncommon and adverse effects of retained fragments may occur. Our technique has been safely used for the last 2 years in our centre, with no episodes of lead breakage or retained fragments, except for one non-tined electrode.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is typically a two-step procedure. During the SNM-test, a quadripolar tined-lead is placed in the third sacral foramen using a standardized percutaneous electrode-placement technique [1].
Normally, if follow-up is positive and clinically significant benefits from nerve stimulation are observed, the temporary extension is removed and a definitive implantable pulse generator (IPG) is placed in a gluteal pocket. In the absence of clinical improvement, the temporary extension and quadripolar tined-lead are removed. Based on clinical and functional observations, a contralateral test or a replacing of the lead may be required.
In many cases, SMN has to be performed several times, and testing electrodes often need to be removed and occasionally replaced.
The currently available quadripolar lead incorporates four equally spaced contact points and four tines (fins), which keep the lead in place once it has been inserted in the sacral foramen (Fig. 1). The position and orientation of tines on the lead make it easy to introduce the electrode during the first-step procedure, but harder to remove it by pulling outward. This mechanism has been studied to avoid accidental lead displacement after implantation [2]. Before the introduction of the percutaneous technique, open surgery was necessary to reach the third sacral foramen and the lead was surgically fixed to periosteum.
Model 3889 lead (adapted from “Medtronic Manuals: InterStim® Therapy Model 3093 Lead Model 3889 lead—implant manual [17]”). Tines lie between marker band A and marker band B
Approximately 20–30% of SNM-implanted patients require surgical revision, whilst 15–18% of them have definitive explantation [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. It is estimated that, regardless of the indication for the procedure, quadripolar lead removal carries a 7.5% risk of lead breakage and permanence of fragments within the pelvis or proximal to the sacral bones [12].
The aim of our study was to describe the technique we have been using for the last 2 years in our centre for the removal of the quadripolar lead both after SNM-testing and following complications of definitive IPG implantation.
Materials and methods
We searched the SNM database of our institution for all the patients who had a quadripolar lead removal between January 2018 and January 2020 via our standardized technique. The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki general principles for medical research involving humans. Following our Institutional Ethical Committee Approval (protocol no. 0036753) and acquisition of written informed consent, patient data were collected. The technique is described below. A step-by-step video is attached.
Patient positioning and preparation
The patient is placed in a prone position with the hips supported to minimise lumbar lordosis and with all pressure points adequately padded. If a temporary extension is present, it is secured with self-retaining surgical forceps.
Local anaesthesia, skin incision and device isolation
A local anaesthetic (such as lidocaine 1%, ropivacaine 7.5%) is used to infiltrate scars of previous percutaneous lead insertion and the gluteal pocket. The skin is incised on the gluteal pocket. Subcutaneous tissues are gently dissected to avoid lead damage, preferably using a scalpel rather than monopolar current. Lead integrity is of crucial importance to introduce the stylet. If an IPG is present, the pseudocapsule is opened and the device is disconnected from the quadripolar lead. If a SNM-test was performed, the connector of percutaneous extension is identified, isolated and sectioned.
Quadripolar lead isolation
Once the distal end of the quadripolar lead is freed from the IPG or the external connector, a gentle traction on the electrode allows identification of a small skin depression over the site of the percutaneous implant. This manoeuvre is useful to assess if the electrode is well isolated and mobile from surrounding tissues, or requires further dissection within the gluteal pocket. A skin incision is made over the sacral scar, and the electrode is isolated as it enters the S3 foramen. Care should be taken to avoid damaging the wire. It is then possible to pull the electrode and extract it through the small sacral incision (Fig. 2).
Use of the stylet to straighten the electrode
Within the original packaging two stylets are provided, one straight and one curved. They are sterilized by the manufacturer using ethylene-oxide (EtO sterilization process). At the time of the percutaneous implant, the surgeon selects which stylet to use [1]. In our experience, we tend to use the bent stylet for the SNM-test, and store the straight one after a second sterilization process with saturated steam (autoclave, temperature 134°, pressure 2.1 bar, 1 h for a complete cycle). The straight stylet is kept for a maximum of 1 month and can be used for a lead removal procedure in this period. In our technique, the surgeon places the straight stylet inside the electrode through its distal end (Fig. 3). In this way, straightening of the whole lead is obtained, including its proximal end in the pelvis, which is typically curved and in a caudo-lateral direction. In the first 3 cases of our series, we performed X-ray imaging during the procedure to confirm straightening of the electrode inside the pelvis (Fig. 4). However, X-ray was done exclusively for specific clinical purposes and is not routinely recommended.
Quadripolar tined-lead removal
Once the stylet is inserted, the first assistant uses a clamp on the electrode to keep it in place. Subsequently, the subcutaneous tissue is gently dissected until the electrode marker band B, at the apex of tined-region, is exposed. A second clamp is used to grip the electrode under the marker band. A torsional movement with soft traction of the clamp will allow the fascia to separate from the tines without breaking the electrode, which can now be easily removed. The stiff stylet straightens the electrode and renders it more rigid, reducing the risk of electrode breakage.
Results
We retrospectively enrolled 59 patients (41 women and 18 men) who had quadripolar lead removal using our standardized technique between January 2018 and January 2020. Mean patient age was 57.2 years, and mean patient body mass index (BMI) was 22.5.kg/m2.
In 44 patients, a tined-lead was removed within 2 months from the SNM-test, due to the absence of clinically significant benefits. In 15 patients the electrode was removed after definitive IPG implantation. In this cohort, mean time from definitive IPG implantation to lead removal was 67.9 months. The electrode was permanently removed in one-third of patients, whilst it was replaced in the remaining cases. Patient characteristics and indications for lead implant and removal are shown in Table 1.
We recorded only 1 case of lead breakage during lead removal, which occurred in a female with a not-tined lead placed 18 years before (221 months), through an open technique with a surgical fixation on the periosteum of the sacral bone. The lead was placed in the fourth sacral foramen, and the device lost its efficacy progressively over the few years prior to the removal. Lead removal by gentle traction was not possible, and it was decided not to proceed with a deeper surgical extraction. A new quadripolar tined-lead was placed in the S3 foramen on the same side, using the percutaneous technique.
Discussion
Rueb et al. [12] found a 7.5% breakage rate during the quadripolar lead removal procedure and identified the tined region as the most vulnerable to damage. The consequences of non-removal of the fragments remain unclear. The fragments increase the risk of motion artefact, involuntary stimulation or heating of the lead during magnetic resonance imaging [13, 14] and other radiological investigations. Other complications include pain at the site of fragments [12] and technical and surgical difficulties in case of new percutaneous lead placement procedures. Lead fragment migration into the sigmoid colon and a subsequent colocutaneous fistula has also been described [15].
In 2008 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned clinicians to take specials precautions to prevent devices from breaking and being left in patients, due to potentially serious adverse events related to unretrieved device fragments (UDFs) [16]. The Medtronic implant manual of lead model 3093 and 3889 merely recommends the application of gentle traction on the electrode, while removing it through the lead introducer site, in a straight line from the lead tines. If resistance occurs during lead removal, a deeper dissection may be necessary to avoid lead breakage and UDFs [17]. The International Continence Society endorses these recommendations [18].
To our knowledge, the most accepted and the only standardized technique for lead removal is the one described by Sterling et al. [19] (and by Okhunov et al. [20] shortly after), which consists of isolating and externalizing the lead with a small skin incision on the previous lead insertion site, dissecting the surrounding fibrous tissue to expose the tines, and removing the lead by wrapping it around a curved hemostat and turning it under tension. Using this technique, and possibly extending the incision down to the sacral body if fragments are present, only 1 lead (3.6%) broke in Sterling’s series.
Two other non-standardized techniques are occasionally reported: lead removal through an incision over the IPG site and gentle lead traction from the gluteal pocket, and the use of the straight stylet to help straighten the electrode.
All these studies focused on the removal of the quadripolar lead after definitive IPG implantation when formed adhesions around tines could make it harder to remove the lead, and description of a specific removal technique is justified [12, 19, 20]. There is no doubt that the more time passes from lead insertion, the more challenging it is to remove it. However, adhesions around the lead due to inflammation may also occur after stage 1 and during the SNM-testing period. Furthermore, the electrode may migrate deep into the pelvis shortly after its insertion and might need to be safely removed. Whenever fragments of tined lead, especially stimulating poles, remain in place, they prevent new electrodes from being implanted at the same site. A limitation of our study is that only 15 patients had the lead removed after definitive IPG implantation. In the remaining 44 cases, the lead has been removed after the 2-months testing-period during which most authors agree that it is easier to avoid lead breakage.
We experienced only 1 lead breakage during the removal procedure after a definitive IPG implantation. However, the patient was the only case out of the series where the open technique—with non-tined lead fixation to the sacral bone—had been used instead of the typical percutaneous insertion. In such cases, we know that the only way to completely remove the lead consists of dissecting deep tissues and removing the plate and the screws used for fixation.
Strengths of our technique include the ease of application and the use of an instrument (the stylet) that is already provided inside the original Medtronic package. Furthermore, the introduction of the stylet does not increase the operative times nor the peri-operative risks for the patient and does not substantially alter the techniques previously described. The benefit of straightening the electrode by reducing interactions with the surrounding tissue during removal significantly outweighs the risks associated with the procedure.
Conclusions
Our technique using a straight stylet to remove the electrode, has been safely used for the last 2 years in our centre, with no episodes of tined electrode breakage or retained fragments.
References
Matzel KE, Chartier-Kastler E, Knowles CH et al (2017) Sacral neuromodulation: standardized electrode placement technique. Neuromodul Technol Neural Interface 20:816–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.12695
Spinelli M, Giardiello G, Gerber M et al (2003) New sacral neuromodulation lead for percutaneous implantation using local anesthesia: description and first experience. J Urol 170:1905–1907. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000092634.64580.9a
Kavvadias T, Huebner M, Brucker SY, Reisenauer C (2017) Management of device-related complications after sacral neuromodulation for lower urinary tract disorders in women: a single center experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 295:951–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4303-2
Shih C, Miller JL, Fialkow M et al (2013) Reoperation after sacral neuromodulation therapy: a single-institution experience. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19:175–178. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31828ab3c9
Gevelinger MM, Sanderson DJ, Jaworski E, Doyle PJ (2019) Evaluation of sacral nerve stimulation device revision and explantation in a single center, multidisciplinary study. Neuromodulation. https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.13050
Force L, da Silva G (2017) Management of complications of sacral neuromodulation. Semin Colon Rectal Surg 28:173–176. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.scrs.2017.07.006
Blandon RE, Gebhart JB, Lightner DJ, Klingele CJ (2008) Re-operation rates after permanent sacral nerve stimulation for refractory voiding dysfunction in women. BJU Int 101:1119–1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07426.x
Lloyd JC, Gill BC, Pizarro-Berdichevsky J, Goldman HB (2017) Removal of sacral nerve stimulation devices for magnetic resonance imaging: what happens next? Neuromodulation 20:836–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.12700
Peters KM, Killinger KA, Gilleran JP et al (2017) Predictors of reoperation after sacral neuromodulation: a single institution evaluation of over 400 patients. Neurourol Urodyn 36:354–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22929
Hijaz A, Vasavada SP, Daneshgari F et al (2006) Complications and troubleshooting of two-stage sacral neuromodulation therapy: a single-institution experience. Urology 68:533–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.03.020
Al-Zahrani AA, Elzayat EA, Gajewski JB (2011) Long-term outcome and surgical interventions after sacral neuromodulation implant for lower urinary tract symptoms: 14-year experience at 1 center. J Urol 185:981–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.054
Rueb JJ, Pizarro-Berdichevsky J, Goldman HB (2020) 17 year single center retrospective review of rate, risk factors, and outcomes of lead breakage during sacral neuromodulation lead removal. J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000740
Shellock FG, Zare A, Ilfeld BM et al (2018) In vitro magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of fragmented, open-coil, percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation leads. Neuromodulation 21:276–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.12705
Quirouet A, Bhattacharyya PK, Dielubanza EJ et al (2017) Sacral neuromodulation device heating during lumbar and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging—a phantom study. Urology 107:61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.06.004
Shannon MB, Gupta N, Eberhardt J, Farooq AV (2018) Broken sacral neuromodulation lead migration into the sigmoid colon: a case report. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 24:e49–e50. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000601
Kuehn BM (2008) FDA: patients at risk of complications from unretrieved medical device fragments. JAMA 299:754
Medtronic Manuals: InterStim® Therapy Model 3093 Lead Model 3889 lead—implant manual. http://manuals.medtronic.com/manuals/main/en_IT/manual/therapyLang.
Goldman HB, Lloyd JC, Noblett KL et al (2018) International Continence Society best practice statement for use of sacral neuromodulation. Neurourol Urodyn 37:1823–1848. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23515
Sterling ME, Hartigan SM, Wein AJ, Smith AL (2016) A standardized surgical technique for removal of the Interstim tined lead. Can J Urol 23:8471–8475
Okhunov Z, Farhan B, Ahmed A et al (2017) Surgical technique for removal of tined lead for InterStim. Can J Urol 24:8918–8920
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Roberto Bellanti, who made an important contribution in revising the manuscript.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Torino.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
BP and VM conceived of the presented idea. AM developed the theory and performed the computations. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript. Credit statement: BP and VM: conceptualization, methodology, reviewing and editing, supervision. AM: investigation, methodology, data curation, writing, original draft preparation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors report no proprietary or commercial interest in any product mentioned or concept discussed in this article.
Ethical approval
The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki general principles for medical research involving humans. Following our Institutional Ethical Committee Approval (protocol no. 0036753).
Informed consent
Acquisition of written informed consent, patient data were collected.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file 1 (MP4 304596 KB)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Agnello, M., Vottero, M. & Bertapelle, P. Removal of sacral neuromodulation quadripolar tined-lead using a straight stylet: description of a surgical technique. Tech Coloproctol 25, 957–963 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02403-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02403-6