1967 LONG TERM INTERVENTION RATE AFTER INTERSTIM IMPLANT IN A SINGLE TERTIARY CENTER COHORT OF 217 PATIENTS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Non-Neurogenic Voiding Dysfunction1 Apr 20121967 LONG TERM INTERVENTION RATE AFTER INTERSTIM IMPLANT IN A SINGLE TERTIARY CENTER COHORT OF 217 PATIENTS Karlien Peeters, Dirk de Ridder, and Frank van der Aa Karlien PeetersKarlien Peeters Leuven, Belgium More articles by this author , Dirk de RidderDirk de Ridder Leuven, Belgium More articles by this author , and Frank van der AaFrank van der Aa Leuven, Belgium More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2126AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We present the long term intervention rate after Interstim implant in a cohort of 217 patients. All patients suffered refractory voiding dysfunction. METHODS This is a retrospective single tertiary center study reviewing all the surgical reinterventions after implantation of a neurostimulator (Interstim therapy) between 1996 and 2010. In total we reviewed the data of 217 patients (86 % female) who received a neurostimulatior for refractory voiding dysfunction. RESULTS The overall success rate of Interstim therapy was 71%.There were 88 (41 %) patients who had at least 1 device or therapy related surgical reintervention. On long term followup, median reintervention rate was 1.7 (150 reinterventions in 88 patients), ranging from 1 to 11. There were 38 (25 %) device explants. The main reason for explant was therapy failure (in 25 cases, 66 %). In 4 cases (11 %), infection led to explantation, in 3 cases (8 %), pain at the implant site or the lead was the reason for explant. In 3 cases (8 %), patients asked for explant or needed a MRI for other reasons. In 4 cases (11 %), dysfunction was the reason for explant, followed by implantation of a new device. In 45 (30 %) cases the lead was repositioned. The reason was dysfunction in 26 cases, lead migration in 17 cases and pain in 6 cases. In 11 cases (7.3 %) the device was repositioned because of pain at the implant site. Battery depletion with exchange of battery device occurred in 23 cases (15 %). A whole new device was implanted during followup in 30 cases (20 %). In 7 cases this was done after explant of initial device. In 21 cases the reason for device exchange was dysfunction, in 1 cases the reason was pain. Most of the reinterventions (47 %) occurred during the first 2 years of followup. Reintervention rate drops after two years of followup, with exception of battery exchange for depletion which starts to occur after 5 years after implantation. CONCLUSIONS Data from this retrospective long term followup study, demonstrates a high reintervention rate after Interstim therapy. 41 %of patients needed a surgical reintervention during follow up, with a median reintervention rate of 1.7. 47 % of reinterventions were done the first two years of follow up. Reintervention rate drops after two years of follow up with exception of battery exchange for depletion. Interstim therapy offers a successful therapy in up to 71% of patients refractory to any other therapies. A high reintervention rate is the price for this success. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e793-e794 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Karlien Peeters Leuven, Belgium More articles by this author Dirk de Ridder Leuven, Belgium More articles by this author Frank van der Aa Leuven, Belgium More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...