Sacral neuromodulation outcomes for the treatment of refractory idiopathic detrusor overactivity stratified by indication – lack of anticholinergic efficacy versus intolerability
Introduction: Patients may fail oral overactive bladder therapies due to either poor drug efficacy or intolerability. We determined if the success of sacral neuromodulation varies if performed secondary to lack of anticholinergic efficacy versus drug intolerability.
Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 152 patients undergoing staged sacral neuromodulation from 2004 to 2010 for refractory idiopathic detrusor overactivity with or without urge incontinence. Outcomes following sacral neuromodulation trials were compared based on the primary indication for anticholinergic failure: lack of drug efficacy versus intolerable side effects.
Results: Overall, successful sacral neuromodulation trials were reported in 70% (106/152) of patients. Successful outcomes were noted in 70% (89/128) and 71% (17/24) of patients with poor anticholinergic efficacy and drug intolerability, respectively (p = NS).
Conclusions: We found no significant difference in outcome success in patients undergoing sacral neuromodulation trials for refractory detrusor overactivity due to lack of anticholinergic efficacy versus intolerability.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.