Third sacral foramina morphometry for sacral neuromodulation.

From the University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery 01/2013; 19(1):23-30. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827bfdb1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study is aimed to define the geometry and location of the human S3 foramen, with respect to bony landmarks visible on ultrasound.
Computed tomographic (CT) image data from an institutional review board-approved database of de-identified pelvic CT images were analyzed. Points along the S3 foramina and bony sacrum were tagged, and their locations saved. The saved points were mathematically analyzed to determine the geometry and relative location of the S3 foramina with respect to other bony landmarks, specifically the sacral hiatus, and the sacral spinous processes, and the caudad aspect of the bilateral SI joints ("SI line"). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the geometry and aggregate location of the S3 foramina bilaterally. CT data sets were excluded if they had evidence of pelvic bone injury, prior bony fixation, severe osteoporosis, or other deformity.
One hundred thirty-three data sets met the inclusion criteria. The SI line was superior to the sacral hiatus for reliable S3 localization. The entire circumference of approximately 14% of the S3 foramina is located cephalad to the SI line. The sagittal angle of trajectory for S3 was approximately 70 degrees relative to the dorsal surface of the sacrum.
Clinical localization of the S3 foramen for sacral neuromodulator needle placement is best obtained when the needle tip is positioned 15 to 25 mm lateral to the sacral spinous processes and 0.0 cm to 25 mm caudad to the SI line, at the level of the dorsal sacrum surface. The findings presented in this study may be applied to improve the efficacy and accuracy of neuromodulator lead placement into the S3 foramen. This study provides rationale for the effectiveness of the crosshair placement technique and demonstrates the best location for needle repositioning when this technique is not initially successful.

Download full-text


Available from: Summer J Decker, Jul 01, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Identification of the second dorsal sacral foramen (S2F) by sonographic imaging is a possible first step in localising the branches of the dorsal sacral rami. The aim of this investigation is to develop an imaging approach to assist the rapid identification of S2F using a well-known regional landmark, the posterior superior iliac spine (PSIS). Twenty-seven skeletal specimens were digitally imaged. Repeated measurements were undertaken of the angle and distance (D(1)) between PSIS and S2F, maximum width of S2F (D(2)), interforaminal distance between contralateral S2F (D(3)), distance between S1F and S2F (D(4)), and distance between S2F and S3F (D(5)). Sonographically guided needle placement was further undertaken to validate these osseous measurements in five intact cadavers. In skeletal material, repeated measurements indicated high intraclass correlation coefficients. No statistically significant difference existed in any measure between sides. Combined measurements indicated that S2F was located 46.4 ± 14.9° from the PSIS in both sexes, with a statistical trend toward a greater angle in females. D(1) had a mean value 2.2 ± 0.62 cm but was significantly shorter in females. The mean values of D(2) and D(3) were 0.75 ± 0.18 cm and 2.98 ± 0.27 cm, respectively, with no significant difference between sexes. The mean value of D(4) was 1.42 ± 0.27 cm with a statistical trend toward a slightly smaller value in females. The mean value for D(5) was 1.28 ± 0.15 cm. Sonographically guided needle placement in cadavers tended to validate these osseous measurements. S2F has a mean maximum width of 0.76 cm and lies approximately 2-3 cm from the PSIS, 45° inferior to the horizontal. The medial left and right borders of S2F are approximately 3 cm apart. The upper three ipsilateral dorsal sacral foramina are 1-1.5 cm apart. These measurements may be useful for sonographers imaging the dorsal sacral region and eventually, for the potential identification of neurovascular branches of the dorsal sacral rami.
    Anatomia Clinica 11/2010; 33(3):279-86. DOI:10.1007/s00276-010-0735-0 · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since receiving approval from the US Food and Drug Administration in 1997, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) has become the recommended treatment of urinary urge incontinence, urgency-frequency, nonobstructive urinary retention, and fecal incontinence. The manufacturer has introduced different technical modifications while surgeons and researchers have adapted and published various innovations and alterations of the technique. This review summarizes the current knowledge and recommendations of SNM preoperative decision making, the implantation technique, and available programming parameters and algorithms based on MEDLINE research, manufacturer instructions, and the approach of an experienced neurourological team. The primary steps and technical aspects to optimize SNM efficacy were the introduction of the tined-lead electrode and the development of the InterStim II impulse generator (both developed by Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN). The initiation of the staged implantation technique for sequential evaluation and implantation with the definitive quadripolar electrode completes the treatment algorithm so that an increased responder rate of SNM for all indications can be achieved.
    Current Urology Reports 06/2011; 12(5):327-35. DOI:10.1007/s11934-011-0204-2 · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The complications of sacral neuromodulation have been minimized as technology has improved. The main surgical complication remains to be surgical site infection. We review evidence-based suggestions and procedure-specific techniques that reduce the infection rate to less than 2%. In the past, surgical revision was reported as high as 40%. The current revision rate at Mayo Clinic Florida is 10%. The most common reason for surgical revision is either battery end-of-life or loss of effectiveness. We review the best practices of the procedure and a systematic approach to troubleshoot loss of effectiveness.
    International Urogynecology Journal 10/2010; 21 Suppl 2(S2):S491-6. DOI:10.1007/s00192-010-1279-x · 2.16 Impact Factor