MP89-02 SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE: SACRAL NEUROMODULATION REPROGRAMMING RATES

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Non-Neurogenic Voiding Dysfunction1 Apr 2015MP89-02 SINGLE CENTER EXPERIENCE: SACRAL NEUROMODULATION REPROGRAMMING RATES Sara Lenherr, Cynthia Stroup, Heather Crossley, Samuel Kaufman, Anne Cameron, John Stoffel, Ann Oldendorf, and J. Quentin Clemens Sara LenherrSara Lenherr More articles by this author , Cynthia StroupCynthia Stroup More articles by this author , Heather CrossleyHeather Crossley More articles by this author , Samuel KaufmanSamuel Kaufman More articles by this author , Anne CameronAnne Cameron More articles by this author , John StoffelJohn Stoffel More articles by this author , Ann OldendorfAnn Oldendorf More articles by this author , and J. Quentin ClemensJ. Quentin Clemens More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1801AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) offers a minimally invasive technique for the management of neurogenic and non-neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. After permanent device placement, many patients report a decline in efficacy prompting reprogramming attempts to achieve a better response. Our aim is to determine what diagnoses and patient factors are associated with reprogramming episodes. METHODS An IRB approved retrospective review was performed on all patients undergoing permanent SNM device placement January 2008 through February 2014. Patients were classified by clinical indication for SNM (see Table, IC/PBS= interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome). Clinical indication for SNM and demographics were correlated with total number of reprogramming visits before and after 12 months of follow-up after device placement. Number of in−person reprogramming visits with a specially trained physician assistant were recorded for each patient. RESULTS 270 unique patients (18.5% male) underwent permanent SNM device placement. Demographics and indication for SNM are listed in Table, with the most patients diagnosed with urgency urinary incontinence (57%) followed by urinary retention (13%). Of those patients, 167 (62%) had at least one reprogramming session for a total of 321 reprogramming sessions. Rates of reprogramming by diagnosis are in Table, with 163 and 158 reprogramming visits total within the first 12 months and >12 months, respectively after IPG implantation. The overall cohort underwent 1.4 ± 0.8 reprogramming sessions within the first year of device placement. Patients with neurogenic bladder were significantly more likely than other diagnoses to undergo reprogramming during the first year after SNM implantation (multinomial probit analysis, p<0.05), but there was no differences in reprogramming rates between diagnoses thereafter. CONCLUSIONS In our practice, SNM reprogramming visits are common and persistent across all diagnoses for greater than one year follow−up. Burden of reprogramming was greater for those patients with a diagnosis of neurogenic bladder as opposed to other clinical diagnoses. This series represents one of the largest experience to date with SNM reprogramming requirements. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e1100 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Sara Lenherr More articles by this author Cynthia Stroup More articles by this author Heather Crossley More articles by this author Samuel Kaufman More articles by this author Anne Cameron More articles by this author John Stoffel More articles by this author Ann Oldendorf More articles by this author J. Quentin Clemens More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...