Clinical evidence
Chronic fecal incontinence long-term study
Sacral neuromodulation delivered by the InterStim™ systems results at five years
Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) delivered by the InterStim™ system is an FDA-approved therapy doctors have trusted to treat chronic fecal incontinence (FI) for over 10 years. Sacral neuromodulation is recommended by the merican Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons as a first-line surgical option for incontinent patients with or without sphincter defects.1
The InterStim™ therapy for bowel control prospective clinical study demonstrates a statistically significant decline in FI symptoms 12 months after implant.
This study uses two statistical analyses: per-protocol analysis and intent-to-treat analysis (see below for definition). Results are similar, demonstrating a statistically significant and clinically relevant reduction in fecal incontinence severity for subjects implanted with the InterStim™ therapy system (p<0.0001).
Per-protocol analysis (also referred to as “completers analysis”): conducted with patients who had complete data at baseline and annual follow-up visits.
Intent-to-treat analysis (also referred to as “modified worst case analysis”): assumed no improvement for patients who were missing bowel diaries (tool used to measure symptom improvement from baseline) at follow-up visits, unless a subsequent bowel diary was available.
Adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients after implantation included implant site pain, paresthesias, implant site infection, change in sensation of stimulation, urinary incontinence, and diarrhea.
Study data demonstrate signifcant improvement in patient quality of life for patients with chronic FI, including physical and psychological well-being, as determined by a variety of accepted measures. Mean FIQOL component scales at each visit for patients with at least five years of follow-up (higher score indicates better quality of life).
■ Completer analysis (P < 0.0001) Patients who had complete data at baseline and at annual visits.
■ Modified worst case analysis (P < 0.0001) Patients missing data at this visit were assumed no change from baseline unless subsequent data was available.
■ Adjusted worst case analysis (P < 0.0001) Patients missing data due ti ack of efficacy, device or therapy-related adverse events, or death were assumed no change from baseline. If data was missing for any other reason at 5 years, the last observation was used.
The most common adverse events through five years (≥ 5% of patients, n=120) are implant site pain, parasthesia, change in sensation of stimulation, implant site infection, urinary incontinence, neurostimulator battery depletion, diarrhea, pain in extremity, undesirable change in stimulation, and buttock pain.1
A study by Hetzer et al. demonstrated significant improvement across all QOL scores. Sacral neuromodulation delivered by the InterStim™ systems significantly improves median Wexner scores at six months (69%, p<0.001). Patients showed a reduction of incontinence symptoms and significantly enhancing QOL, including their social life.5
Sacral neuromodulation delivered by the InterStim™ system significantly improves generic and incontinence-specific QOL at six-month follow-up:5
Complications reported in patients with long-term stimulation included infection/seroma, pain/sleeping disturbance, and loss of effect/dislocation.
† 41% in per-protocol analysis (n=106) and 36% for intent-to-treat analysis (n=120) for complete continence.
‡ 83% in per-protocol analysis (n=106) and 73% for intent-to-treat analysis (n=120) for both weekly incontinent episodes and days per week (p<0.0001).
§ 80% in per-protocol analysis (n=106) and 71% for intent-to-treat analysis (n=120) for urge incontinent episodes per week (p<0.0001).
◊ Clinical success defined as ≥ 50% reduction in episodes/week.
¶ Numbers reflect Completers analysis which included patients who had complete data at baseline and at annual visits. Clinical success was 69% and complete continence was 28% in the Adjusted worst case analysis in which patients with missing data due to lack of efficacy, device or therapy-related adverse events, or death were assumed no change from baseline. If data was missing for any other reason at 5 years, the last observation was used