2014
DOI: 10.1111/codi.12680
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation vs sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence: a comparative case‐matched study

Abstract: Posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a valid method of treating faecal incontinence in the short term when conservative treatment has failed. It is easier, simpler, cheaper and less invasive than SNS with a similar short-term outcome.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Comparative studies are scarce. One study compared 23 patients randomized to SNM versus 17 randomized to percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation . Though short‐term outcomes were acceptable in both groups, the design of the study did not allow statistical comparison between groups.…”
Section: Fecal Incontinence (Fi)mentioning
confidence: 98%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Comparative studies are scarce. One study compared 23 patients randomized to SNM versus 17 randomized to percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation . Though short‐term outcomes were acceptable in both groups, the design of the study did not allow statistical comparison between groups.…”
Section: Fecal Incontinence (Fi)mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…One study compared 23 patients randomized to SNM versus 17 randomized to percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation. 49,50 Though short-term outcomes were acceptable in both groups, the design of the study did not allow statistical comparison between groups. One study compared 15 patients treated with SNM to 15 historical controls treated with the artificial bowel sphincter.…”
Section: Fecal Incontinence (Fi)mentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In a study comparing SNS to PTNS in patients with FI, the authors did not find any significant difference in efficacy at 6 and 12 months between the two treatment groups [96]. PTNS is less expensive and less invasive than SNS and therefore associated with less adverse events.…”
Section: Evolving Treatmentsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Al Asari et al reported no significant differences in the mean Wexner and FI Quality of Life (FIQoL) scores between PTNS and SNS groups up to 12 months on treatment of refractory FI. [98] A RCT comparing PTNS and SNS in the treatment for FI is currently being undertaken in Switzerland (NCT01069016). [100,104]…”
Section: Neuromodulationmentioning
confidence: 99%