Advertisement

Infection Rate of a Prolonged Sacral Neuromodulation Test: A Large Retrospective Study

Published:October 04, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurom.2022.08.453

      Abstract

      Objectives

      It is estimated that 3.8% to 12.5% of patients develop a device infection during the two to four weeks of the sacral neuromodulation (SNM) test, leading to removal of the entire system. It is possible to prolong the test phase up to the clinician’s decision, particularly when benefits are unclear. The aim of our study is to assess the device infection rate in a prolonged SNM test.

      Materials and Methods

      We retrospectively enrolled patients who performed a prolonged SNM test (at least eight weeks) in the last five years (2017–2021). All procedures were performed using a standardized technique and the same prophylactic antibiotic protocol. In case of a clinical suspicion of infection, all components were explanted. Patient information (age at implantation, medical history of diabetes, metabolic syndrome, immunologic diseases, or chronic immunosuppressive therapy), surgical data (operative time, intraoperative complications), and infection data (timing of onset, symptoms reported, wound culture results) were recorded.

      Results

      We enrolled 232 patients who underwent a prolonged SNM test (mean duration 65.5 days). A local infection that led to the removal of the entire system occurred in six patients (2.6%). The gluteal pocket was always involved, and in two cases, infection was also extended to the exit point of the extension wire. No significant correlations with clinical data were found. Infection occurred beyond four weeks in two cases, between three and four weeks in three cases, and within two weeks in one case. Intraoperative wound culture was performed in five of six patients, and Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) was isolated in four cases. One culture test gave negative bacterial growth results.

      Conclusions

      The infection rate of a prolonged eight-week SNM test is low and does not differ from that reported in the literature for a two-to-four–week SNM test. S aureus remains the most frequent bacterium involved.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Everaert K.
        • Kerckhaert W.
        • Caluwaerts H.
        • et al.
        A prospective randomized trial comparing the 1-stage with the 2-stage implantation of a pulse generator in patients with pelvic floor dysfunction selected for sacral nerve stimulation.
        Eur Urol. 2004; 45: 649-654https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EURURO.2003.11.015
        • Kessler T.M.
        • Madersbacher H.
        • Kiss G.
        Prolonged sacral neuromodulation testing using permanent leads: a more reliable patient selection method?.
        Eur Urol. 2005; 47: 660-665https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.11.005
        • Borawski K.M.
        • Foster R.T.
        • Webster G.D.
        • Amundsen C.L.
        Predicting implantation with a neuromodulator using two different test stimulation techniques: a prospective randomized study in urge incontinent women.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2007; 26: 14-18https://doi.org/10.1002/NAU.20332
        • Janknegt R.A.
        • Weil E.H.J.
        • Eerdmans P.H.A.
        Improving neuromodulation technique for refractory voiding dysfunctions: two-stage implant.
        Urology. 1997; 49: 358-362https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00506-7
        • Spinelli M.
        • Giardiello G.
        • Gerber M.
        • Arduini A.
        • van den Hombergh U.
        • Malaguti S.
        New sacral neuromodulation lead for percutaneous implantation using local anesthesia: description and first experience.
        J Urol. 2003; 170: 1905-1907https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000092634.64580.9a
        • Carmel M.E.
        • Vasavada S.P.
        • Goldman H.B.
        Troubleshooting sacral neuromodulation issues.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2012; 13: 363-369https://doi.org/10.1007/S11934-012-0268-7
        • Matzel K.E.
        • Chartier-Kastler E.
        • Knowles C.H.
        • et al.
        Sacral neuromodulation: standardized electrode placement technique.
        Neuromodulation. 2017; 20: 816-824https://doi.org/10.1111/ner.12695
        • Agnello M.
        • Vottero M.
        • Bertapelle P.
        Removal of sacral neuromodulation quadripolar tined-lead using a straight stylet: description of a surgical technique.
        Tech Coloproctol. 2021; 25: 957-963https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02403-6
        • Pettit P.
        Current opinion: complications and troubleshooting of sacral neuromodulation.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: S491-S496https://doi.org/10.1007/S00192-010-1279-X
        • Pannek J.
        • Grigoleit U.
        • Hinkel A.
        Bacterial contamination of test stimulation leads during percutaneous nerve stimulation.
        Urology. 2005; 65: 1096-1098https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2005.01.004
        • Huwyler M.
        • Kiss G.
        • Burkhard F.C.
        • Madersbacher H.
        • Kessler T.M.
        Microbiological tined-lead examination: does prolonged sacral neuromodulation testing induce infection?.
        BJU Int. 2009; 104 ([discussion: 650]. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1464-410X.2009.08501.X): 646-650
        • Hijaz A.
        • Vasavada S.
        Complications and troubleshooting of sacral neuromodulation therapy.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2005; 32: 65-69https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UCL.2004.09.001
        • Guralnick M.L.
        • Benouni S.
        • O’Connor R.C.
        • Edmiston C.
        Characteristics of infections in patients undergoing staged implantation for sacral nerve stimulation.
        Urology. 2007; 69: 1073-1076https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2007.01.099
        • Myer E.N.B.
        • Petrikovets A.
        • Slocum P.D.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for explantation due to infection after sacral neuromodulation: a multicenter retrospective case-control study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 78.e1-78.e9https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.04.005
        • Haraway A.M.
        • Clemens J.Q.
        • He C.
        • Stroup C.
        • Atiemo H.O.
        • Cameron A.P.
        Differences in sacral neuromodulation device infection rates based on preoperative antibiotic selection.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24: 2081-2085https://doi.org/10.1007/S00192-013-2121-Z
        • Siegel S.W.
        • Catanzaro F.
        • Dijkema H.E.
        • et al.
        Long-term results of a multicenter study on sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of urinary urge incontinence, urgency-frequency, and retention.
        Urology. 2000; 56: 87-91https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00597-5
        • White W.M.
        • Mobley J.D.
        • Doggweiler R.
        • Dobmeyer-Dittrich C.
        • Klein F.A.
        Incidence and predictors of complications with sacral neuromodulation.
        Urology. 2009; 73: 731-735https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2008.11.047
        • Lee C.
        • Pizarro-Berdichevsky J.
        • Clifton M.M.
        • Vasavada S.P.
        Sacral neuromodulation implant infection: risk factors and prevention.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2017; 18: 16https://doi.org/10.1007/S11934-017-0663-1