Skip to main content

New Technologies and Applications in Sacral Neuromodulation: An Update


Recently rechargeable devices have been introduced for sacral neuromodulation (SNM) with conditional safety for full-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Currently a recharge-free SNM device represents the standard implant; however, it is only approved for MRI head scans. As further new technologies with broader MRI capabilities are emerging, the advantages as well as disadvantages of both rechargeable versus recharge-free devices will be briefly discussed in this commentary from the perspective of patients, healthcare professionals, and providers.

FormalPara Key Summary Points
This article reports on new technical advancements in sacral neuromodulation, such as the need for having full-body MRI-safe devices
In detail, the pros and cons of rechargeable versus recharge-free devices with some recommendations for patient selection are discussed


With more than 300,000 patients implanted worldwide, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has become an established minimally invasive therapy for refractory overactive bladder, non-obstructive urinary retention, and fecal incontinence. Recently, rechargeable and conditional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-safe devices (Axonics r-SNM System™, Irvine, CA) have been introduced in both Europe and USA. The clinical effectiveness of this system appears to be similar to that of the current recharge-free InterStim™ II device (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) [1]. Newer InterStim devices have been submitted for CE mark and FDA approval [2] in order to improve patient preference and provide full-body MRI safety for both 1.5 and 3 Tesla with the latter field strength having become the clinical standard. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Objective and Methods

This commentary mainly assesses the benefits and limitations of new devices for SNM including MRI-safe devices and rechargeable systems in comparison with recharge-free devices. For that purpose, a literature review was performed in EMBASE and Medline databases on July 10, 2019. Included were articles on deep brain and spinal cord stimulation as well as SNM. Exclusion criteria were case reports with less than five patients and articles on cost-effectiveness. The literature review served as a base to initiate discussion meetings with leading and highly experienced SNM implanters in Europe and USA.Footnote 1 The literature review and the discussion meeting outcomes form the scientific basis of this commentary. The design of this article is in accordance with ethical standards. Since there are no head-to-head studies between the two manufacturers of SNM devices, no device specific recommendations can be given.

Role of MRI

The desire for full-body MRI-safe devices is obvious, since at least half of patients with pacemakers or neurostimulators will have a clinical indication for an MRI examination over their lifetime [3], and up to 23% of SNM explantations are currently due to the need for MRI [4]. In neurogenic subpopulations, such as multiple sclerosis, the lack of MRI compatibility has been considered a relative contraindication to SNM even though clinical benefits have been demonstrated in small case series from this subpopulation [5]. A further group of patients with lower back pain may also be excluded on this basis, some of whom may have incontinence concomitant with cauda equina syndrome. In addition, patients with fecal incontinence due to low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) may also need regular MRI examinations for cancer surveillance. It is expected that these new technologies will therefore enable more patients to choose SNM as their preferred therapeutic option [4].


But what then of the ability to recharge? Does this result in significant benefits to the patient? Several factors merit discussion.

Device Size Comparison

First, rechargeable batteries result in smaller volume implantable pulse generators (IPGs). These may result in more comfort for patients with low body mass index (BMI), and intuitively at first glance, the much smaller size will be more attractive to the patient than the current InterStim II IPG. Currently available SNM systems include the recharge-free InterStim II system (14 cm3 volume) and the rechargeable Axonics system (5.5 cm3 volume) [6]. The emerging InterStim Micro technology (2.8 cm3 volume) reduces the size by about 80% when compared with the InterStim II and will be approximately 49% smaller than the current available Axonics rechargeable SNM device.

However, much smaller rechargeable SNM devices will not be a benefit to all patients because about 40% of the global adult population has body weight issues [7]. In a large, multicenter, prospective study of 272 patients with overactive bladder only 7% reported implant site pain with the current recharge-free InterStim II device [8]. For comparison, with smaller, rechargeable SNM devices pain at the neurostimulator site has been observed in less than 2% of the patients [9]. Therefore, although the smaller size of a rechargeable device does matter for some patients, the vast majority of patients will do equally well with the InterStim II device, which is about the size of a heart pacemaker. Moreover, the correct implantation of a small rechargeable device with the necessity for frequent recharges may be more challenging in obese patients, since the angle and distance between the superficially implanted IPG and recharger may change significantly between recharging sessions, thus making the recharge more cumbersome for obese patients. Furthermore, the stability of the IPG inside the fat tissue could be compromised and/or the patient might be more likely exposed to twiddler’s syndrome [10]. The latter occurs when patients manipulate or rotate their device leading to a dislodgment of the leads with subsequent malfunction of the modulation system.

Device Longevity

A second issue relates to the requirement for battery (IPG) changes. The battery life of rechargeable devices has been estimated as 15 years compared to the longevity of the current InterStim II (IPG), which in clinical practice is about 5–7 years [11,12,13]. As a result of the claimed longer battery life of a rechargeable IPG, it has therefore been suggested that this therapy is associated with a reduced need for reoperation [14]. This assumption, however, ignores other important facts. For various reasons some patients will not need device longevity of 15 years. In a long-term study of 325 patients with a mean follow-up of 7.1 years it was shown that up to 39% of patients drop out because of loss of follow-up, death, dementia, lack of efficacy, device problems, or infections, thereby eliminating any need for future battery replacements [15]. Thus, life expectancy based on the biological age will be an important determinant when considering rechargeable devices. Furthermore cognition and patient’s dexterity will also be important to consider in the aging population when deciding between rechargeable versus recharge-free systems. Additionally, many revision surgeries are due to lead issues (i.e., lead breakage, lead migration, or loss of effectiveness). In the same large cohort, a new lead was required in 37.8% of patients over a mean follow-up period of 7.1 years [15]. A longer-lasting IPG will have no bearing on lead-related surgeries (although it must be acknowledged that in real-life practice it may often be difficult to predict up-front which patients will need an extended longevity of more than a decade). Although the lead revision rate has been reduced to 13% in other studies, it cannot be neglected [16]. Finally, the recent adoption of an optimized tined lead placement technique allows for lower amplitudes and thus even longer battery life could be expected from rechargeable and recharge-free systems [17].

Finally, patient expectations of having only one surgery over a period of 15 years for rechargeable devices may also turn out to be an illusion. Battery life may be shorter, if battery fade is taken into account. In that respect different manufacturers may have different technologies [18] and industry deserves merit for the advancements in battery technology. However, only future observation (long-term studies) can ultimately show if battery fade will eventually be an issue.

Treatment Compliance and Disease Awareness

There are also other less obvious but significant pitfalls associated with rechargeable devices. First, patients must be compliant and have the cognitive capability and the manual dexterity to recharge their IPG on a weekly or biweekly basis [9] over a period of 15 years. Although the recharging process with modern technologies can be done conveniently at home without being connected to a power socket, the therapeutic non-compliance of patients has been an issue for decades [19]. Typically, the compliance rate of long-term medication is between 40% and 50%, while the compliance for lifestyle changes is low at 20–30%. Since a lack of compliance will lead to a loss of effectiveness and/or an increased burden for the healthcare professionals, careful screening of the patient before implantation of a rechargeable device is imperative. One neuromodulation device manufacturer reported that one of the most frequent patient questions addressed to its helpline related to charging issues in rechargeable devices (Medtronic, private communication). In a well-selected study population (that may differ from real life), patients were recruited and followed in a strict and intensively controlled protocol: 17% of patients did not agree at 1-year follow-up that recharging their IPG was moderately or very easy [20]. In a real-life study with recharge-free SNM devices only 50–63% of the implanted patients had a good understanding of the previous InterStim patient programmer (iCon 3037) or acceptable skills in handling the device [21]. With simpler patient programmers and an increased usage of smartphones (even in an elderly patient population), familiarity with technical devices may improve significantly over time. Nevertheless, recharge-free devices require no regular or frequent interactions with the patient programmer and patients with a poorer compliance may better qualify for recharge-free SNM.

Another factor is one of disease awareness. One of the greatest benefits that patients describe is their ability to forget about their medical condition once an SNM is implanted. A recharge-free system allows the patient to set and forget their SNM system. In a rechargeable SNM system, the patient is reminded of their condition every 1–2 weeks. While it has yet to be studied formally, the authors believe the psychological and patient perception of disease will be experienced differently between rechargeable and recharge-free populations.

Although there are currently no patient preference studies of SNM in terms of rechargeable versus recharge-free devices, some conclusions can be drawn from patient surveys in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or deep brain stimulation (DBS) therapies, where rechargeable devices have been used for more than 10 years. In a survey of 30 patients with movement disorders visiting a pre-DBS clinic (mean age 65, range 45–79 years), 63% chose the recharge-free device compared to 37% for the rechargeable device, even though the battery longevity of the recharge-free device was estimated at only 3–5 years [22]. In a multicenter, retrospective study with 352 explanted SCS patients it was reported that patients with rechargeable devices terminated their therapy earlier than patients with recharge-free devices [23]. This observation may be consistent with an increased burden for therapy maintenance, which could be related to a higher probability of device removal [23]. Additionally, it seems that industry’s attitude towards rechargeable devices has changed over the years from an initial technical enthusiasm towards a sobering experience with nowadays preferring a more patient-centered approach [24]. Age may be a factor in this. Lam and Rosenow reported that patients in whom the recharging burden outweighed benefits of increased battery life were significantly older (74 years) than those who felt that the tradeoff was worthwhile (56 years) [25]. However, in other surveys an age or gender dependency has not been found [22].

Decision-Making Regarding Rechargeable vs Recharge-Free Stimulators

How does the above discussion translate into decision-making for the individual patient? The authors acknowledge that good indications for rechargeable devices are seen in technology-savvy, compliant, and highly motivated patients or in patients who are in need of high energy stimulation with expected battery life of 3 years or less, slim patients with insufficient fat tissue at the implant site, patients with a history of pain, or patients with significant infection risks for device replacements (e.g., due to immunosuppressive medication) (Table 1). When assessing patient compliance for rechargeable SNM it is recommended to look at all factors that may impact therapeutic non-compliance [19]. These include demographic factors (age, gender, education, available caregiver); psychosocial factors (motivation, attitude), health literacy, patient knowledge, physical difficulties, forgetfulness, or history of good compliance; complexity of therapy maintenance (finding the right spot to recharge); potential side effects of therapy maintenance (potential discomfort due to mild heating depending on battery technology [26]); compatibility with lifestyle (frequent travelling); lack of accessibility for therapy maintenance (frequent travelling, easy access in case of lost recharger, helpline in case of technical questions); cost issues (insurance in case of lost recharger); and patient motivation.

Table 1 Criteria for patient selection: recharge-free versus rechargeable devices

A shared decision-making process between each individual patient and physician is recommended by making the patient aware of all advantages and disadvantages of each system. Nevertheless, reimbursement, socioeconomic, and cultural factors may differ from country to country and may also have an impact on the therapy decision. Last but not least, patient and physician preferences may also change over time. It is the authors’ view that recharge-free devices are expected to remain the gold standard in the near future, since the majority of patients may prefer a maintenance-free system without being reminded of their disease on a regular basis. Time will tell.


  1. The expert meetings have been supported by Medtronic.


  1. Coolen RL, Groen J, Blok B. Electrical stimulation in the treatment of bladder dysfunction: technology update. Med Devices (Auckl). 2019;12:337–45.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. NeuroNews. Medtronic announces FDA submission for InterStim Micro neurostimulator and SureScan™ MRI leads. Accessed 14 Oct 2019.

  3. Kalin R, Stanton MS. Current clinical issues for MRI scanning of pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2005;28(4):326–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Guzman-Negron JM, Pizarro-Berdichevsky J, Gill BC, Goldman HB. Can lumbosacral magnetic resonance imaging be performed safely in patients with a sacral neuromodulation device? An in vivo prospective study. J Urol. 2018;200(5):1088–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldman HB, Lloyd JC, Noblett KL, et al. International Continence Society best practice statement for use of sacral neuromodulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(5):1823–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cohn JA, Kowalik CG, Kaufman MR, Reynolds WS, Milam DF, Dmochowski RR. Evaluation of the axonics modulation technologies sacral neuromodulation system for the treatment of urinary and fecal dysfunction. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2017;14(1):3–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Krzysztoszek J, Laudańska-Krzemińska I, Bronikowski M. Assessment of epidemiological obesity among adults in EU countries. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2019;26(2):341–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Noblett K, Siegel S, Mangel J, et al. Results of a prospective, multicenter study evaluating quality of life, safety, and efficacy of sacral neuromodulation at 12 months in subjects with symptoms of overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(2):246–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McCrery R, Lane F, Benson K, Taylor C, Padron O, Blok B, et al. Treatment of urinary urgency incontinence using a rechargeable SNM system: 6-month results of the ARTISAN-SNM study. J Urol. 2019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jabri A, Laiq Z, Nabeel Y. Twiddler’s syndrome: an unusual cause of repeated shocks by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in an asymptomatic patient. Heart Views. 2019;20(3):118–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Siegel S, Kreder K, Takacs E, McNamara R, Kan F. Prospective randomized feasibility study assessing the effect of cyclic sacral neuromodulation on urinary urge incontinence in women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(4):267–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Duchalais E, Meurette G, Perrot B, Wyart V, Kubis C, Lehur PA. Exhausted implanted pulse generator in sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: what next in daily practice for patients? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016;31(2):439–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Widmann B, Galata C, Warschkow R, et al. Success and complication rates after sacral neuromodulation for fecal incontinence and constipation: a single-center follow-up study. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019;25(1):159–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blok B, Van Kerrebroeck P, de Wachter S, et al. Three month clinical results with a rechargeable sacral neuromodulation system for the treatment of overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(S2):S9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Janssen PT, Kuiper SZ, Stassen LP, Bouvy ND, Breukink SO, Melenhorst J. Fecal incontinence treated by sacral neuromodulation: long-term follow-up of 325 patients. Surgery. 2017;161(4):1040–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Le Fouler A, Duchalais E, Loong TH, et al. Long-term outcome following implanted pulse generator change in patients treated with sacral nerve modulation for fecal incontinence. Neuromodulation. 2018;21(7):694–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Matzel KE, Chartier-Kastler E, Knowles CH, et al. Sacral neuromodulation: standardized electrode placement technique. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(8):816–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Medtronic. Overdrive battery technology. Accessed 16 Oct 2019.

  19. Jin J, Sklar GE, Min Sen OhV, Chuen Li S. Factors affecting therapeutic compliance: a review from the patient’s perspective. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2008;4(1):269–86.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Blok B, Van Kerrebroeck P, de Wachter S, et al. A prospective, multicenter study of a novel, miniaturized rechargeable sacral neuromodulation system: 12-month results from the RELAX-OAB study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(2):689–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Judd JP, Wu JM, Amundsen CL. Understanding of the Interstim iCon 3037 patient programmer. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16(Suppl 2):S159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Khaleeq T, Hasegawa H, Samuel M, Ashkan K. Fixed-life or rechargeable battery for deep brain stimulation: which do patients prefer? Neuromodulation. 2019;22(4):489–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pope JE, Deer TR, Falowski S, et al. Multicenter retrospective study of neurostimulation with exit of therapy by explant. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(6):543–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Keith Boettiger (Abbott neuromod devision). Accessed 16 Oct 2019.

  25. Lam CK, Rosenow JM. Patient perspectives on the efficacy and ergonomics of rechargeable spinal cord stimulators. Neuromodulation. 2010;13(3):218–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Eldridge P, Simpson B, Gilbart J. The role of rechargeable systems in neuromodulation. Eur Neurol Rev. 2011;6(3):187–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references



This article, the Rapid Service and Open Access Fees were funded by Medtronic International Trading Sarl, Switzerland.


All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Authorship Contributions

All authors contributed to the concept and design of the commentary and provided major editorial input on the earlier and final versions of the manuscript.


Stefan De Wachter receives paid consulting fees from Medtronic as honoraria for invited speaker. Paul Lehur has consulting agreements with Medtronic and B.Braun. Charles Knowles and Klaus Matzel have management/advisory affiliations with a global advisory panel regarding SNM for pelvic indications (directly relating to this manuscript) and also have paid consulting agreements with Medtronic (lectures). Charles Knowles also receives research support from Medtronic and Saluda Medical. Dean Elterman received consultancy or speaker fees from Axonics, Astellas, Boston Scientific, Duchesnay, Medtronic, Pfizer and Procept BioRobotics. He received research grants from Bioness, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Procept Biorobotics. Michael Kennelly received research grants from Allergan, Amphora, Axonics, Cook Myosite, Dignify Therapeutics, Ipsen, Taris, Uro1, FemPulse and EBT Medical. He is a member of advisory boards of Boston Scientific, Coloplast, Laborie, Urovant and has received speaker honoraria from Astellas and Allergan. Stefan Engelberg is a Medtronic employee. Philip E.V. Van Kerrebroeck received consultancy or speaker fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Axonics, BlueWind, Ferring, Medtronic and Neuspera.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Peer Review

Please note, contrary to the journal’s standard single-blind peer review process, as a commentary this article underwent review by a member of the journal’s Editorial Board.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan De Wachter.

Additional information

Enhanced Digital Features

To view enhanced digital features for this article go to

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial 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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Wachter, S., Knowles, C.H., Elterman, D.S. et al. New Technologies and Applications in Sacral Neuromodulation: An Update. Adv Ther 37, 637–643 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Fecal incontinence
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Overactive bladder
  • Rechargeable battery
  • Sacral neuromodulation
  • Stimulator
  • Urology