Cited by 56Spinal Cord Injury ResearchPelvic floor disorders treatmentsGastrointestinal motility and disorders

Effect of sacral anterior root stimulator on bowel dysfunction in patients with spinal cord injury

Vallès, Margarita, Rodríguez, Alfred, Borau, Albert, Mearin, Fermín·2009·Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

Purpose Bowel dysfunction is a problem in patients with spinal cord injury. The sacral anterior root stimulator has been used for neurogenic bladder and has been claimed to be useful for neurogenic bowel. The purposes of this study were to analyze the clinical response of bowel function to the sacral anterior root stimulator and to evaluate physiologic factors that could determine its efficacy. Methods Eighteen consecutive patients with spinal cord injury and an implanted sacral anterior root stimulator were evaluated. Clinical assessment, colonic transit time, and anorectal manometry were performed. Patients were evaluated before implantation of the sacral anterior root stimulator and clinically reevaluated after 12 months. Results Fewer patients required laxatives after implantation of the sacral anterior root stimulator. The mean number of methods used to evacuate was reduced from 2.1 to 1.5 (P Conclusion The sacral anterior root stimulator improves bowel function, and patient satisfaction with this treatment is high. Further studies are needed to evaluate the characteristics of stimulation parameters to achieve better results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/dcr.0b013e31819ed459

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In selected patients with spinal cord injury, computerized stimulation of the sacral anterior roots may improve pelvic colonic and anorectal sphincter function, generally in conjunction with S2-S4 posterior sacral rhizotomy to reduce the risk of autonomic dysreflexia.

    “In selected patients, computerized stimulation of the sacral anterior roots may improve pelvic colonic and anorectal sphincter function, generally in conjunction with S2–S4 posterior sacral rhizotomy to reduce the risk of autonomic dysreflexia (Rasmussen et al., 2015; Valles et al., 2009).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vallès, M., Rodríguez, A., Borau, A., & Mearin, F.
Affiliations
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
Corresponding author
Mearin, Fermín
Venue
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum
Published
2009-05
Volume
52
Issue
5
Pages
986-992
ISSN
0012-3706 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051394226
Cited by
56
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
Keywords
spinal cord injury, neurogenic bowel dysfunction, fecal incontinence, colonic transit time, anorectal manometry, laxative use, bowel evacuation, patient satisfaction, neuromodulation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anal Canal, Constipation, Electrodes, Implanted, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Fecal Incontinence, Female, Humans, Male, Manometry, Middle Aged, Sacrum, Spinal Cord Injuries, Spinal Nerve Roots, Patient Satisfaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review