Cited by 47Spinal Cord Injury ResearchUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchPelvic floor disorders treatments

Sacral anterior root stimulation improves bowel function in subjects with spinal cord injury

Rasmussen, M M, Kutzenberger, J, Krogh, K, Zepke, F, Bodin, C, Domurath, B, Christensen, P·2015·Spinal Cord

Abstract

Study design Cross-sectional study. Objective To evaluate the long-term effect of the sacral anterior root stimulator (SARS) on neurogenic bowel dysfunction in a large, well defined spinal cord injury (SCI) cohort. Setting Department of Neuro-Urology, Bad Wildungen, Germany. Methods Subjects undergone surgery at for SARS-SDAF (sacral deafferentation) between September 1986 and July 2011 (n=587) answered a questionnaire. In total, 277 SARS subjects were available for the baseline (recall) and follow-up comparison. Results Median age was 49 years (range: 19-80), time from SCI to surgery was 10 years (range: 0-49) and from surgery to follow-up 13 (range: 1-25). Of the responders 73% used SARS for bowel emptying. On visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0-10 (best), satisfaction with SARS was 10. Baseline and follow-up comparison showed a decline in the median VAS score 0-10 (worst) for bowel symptoms from 6 (range: 4-8) to 4 (range: 2-6), P Conclusions The SARS has the potential to be one of the few treatment methods targeting multiple organ dysfunctions following SCI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sc.2015.2

Cites

20 of 20 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rasmussen, M. M., Kutzenberger, J., Krogh, K., Zepke, F., Bodin, C., Domurath, B., & Christensen, P.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
  • Werner-Wicker-Klinik (DE)
Corresponding author
Rasmussen, M M
Venue
Spinal Cord
Published
2015-01-20
Volume
53
Issue
4
Pages
297-301
ISSN
  • 1362-4393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5624
OpenAlex
W2066636914
Cited by
47
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Spinal Cord (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Lundbeckfonden (R34-2009-3974)
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Keywords
sacral anterior root stimulation, spinal cord injury, neurogenic bowel dysfunction, bowel emptying, constipation, long-term outcomes, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Constipation, Cross-Sectional Studies, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sacrum, Spinal Cord Injuries, Spinal Nerve Roots, Treatment Outcome, Neurogenic Bowel, Young Adult

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