Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 13, 2025
Nerve-sparing Mid-urethral Obstruction NeMO in Female Small Rodents
Published on: April 25, 2017
Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Sacral Neuromodulation (SNM) in Patients with Neurogenic Lower
Arndt van Ophoven1, Stefan Engelberg2, Helen Lilley3
1Department of Neuro-Urology, Marien Hospital Herne, University Hospital Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany. arndt.vanophoven@marienhospital-herne.de.
Introduction:
Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has been used in carefully selected patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunctions (nLUTD) for over two decades.
Methods:
The aim of the current work was to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the safety and effectiveness of SNM in patients with nLUTD (neurogenic detrusor overactivity, non-obstructive urinary retention, or a combination of both). For this purpose a systematic literature research was conducted using Embase (OvidSP), MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-Process Citations & Daily Update (OvidSP), MEDLINE (OvidSP) e-Pub ahead of print, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), NIH Clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) between 1998 and March 2020, supplemented by a hand search.
Results:
Forty-seven studies were included in the systematic literature review. Twenty-one studies comprising a total of 887 patients were included in the meta-analysis of test SNM. The pooled success rate of SNM test stimulation was 66.2% (95% CI 56.9-74.4). Depending on neurogenic conditions test success rates varied greatly. Twenty-four studies with a total of 428 patients were included in the meta-analysis of permanent SNM. The success rate of pooled permanent SNM was 84.2% (95% CI 77.8-89.0). Among the identified studies, the most common adverse events (AEs) were loss of effectiveness, infection, pain at implant site, and lead migration with AE rates of 4.7%, 3.6%, 3.2%, and 3.2%, respectively. Limitations entail lower level of evidence (Oxford classification 3-4) of included studies, significant risk of bias, small sample sizes in some studies, the inclusion of retrospective case series, substantial between-study heterogeneity, heterogeneous patient populations, insufficient disease classification, and variations in terms of outcome parameters as well as techniques. Furthermore, long-term data are limited.
Conclusion:
This meta-analysis supports not only the benefits of permanent SNM for various nLUTDs but also high overall success rates, similar to idiopathic patients. Current data of the analyzed studies showed that SNM is safe for these patients. However, more vigorous studies and/or registries are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.
