PubMed · 11458064
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J G Blaivas. 2001. Chronic sacral neuromodulation.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65980-0
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This paper develops a novel control system for functional electrical stimulation (FES) locomotion, which aims to generate normal locomotion for paraplegics via FES. It explores the possibility of applying ideas from biology to engineering. The neural control mechanism of the biological motor system, the central pattern generator, has been adopted in the control system design. Some artificial control techniques such as neural network control, fuzzy logic, control and impedance control are incorporated to refine the control performance. Several types of sensory feedback are integrated to endow this control system with an adaptive ability. A musculoskeletal model with 7 segments and 18 muscles is constructed for the simulation study. Satisfactory simulation results are achieved under this FES control system, which indicates a promising technique for the potential application of FES locomotion in future.
OBJECTIVES: With the increasing use of sacral neuromodulation therapy, urologists are faced with postimplantation challenges. The purpose of this study was to identify these events and their causes and management in our large single-institution experience. METHODS: From July 2002 to September 2004, all patients who underwent sacral neuromodulation therapy for refractory bladder conditions were identified. Their medical records were retrospectively evaluated for history, operative intervention, and programming visits. Events after implantation of the implantable pulse generator (IPG) unit were noted. The evaluation, troubleshooting, management, and resolution of events at the last follow-up visit were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 214 patients underwent sacral neuromodulation therapy at our institution. The mean patient age was 53.5 +/- 15.4 years. Of the 214 patients, 161 underwent IPG implantation during a mean follow-up period of 16 months (range 5 to 30). The second-stage explantation and revision rate was 10.5% and 16.1%, respectively. The indications for explantation were infection (8 of 17) and failure to maintain a response (9 of 17). Revisions were done for decreases in response with abnormal (12 of 26) or normal (5 of 26) impedance measurements, IPG site discomfort (4 of 26), draining sinus at the IPG site (4 of 26), and lead migration (1 of 26). Equalization of impedance measurements was the most commonly observed impedance abnormality. These were managed by drying fluid from the connection in 4 patients and lead change in the rest. CONCLUSIONS: After IPG implantation, a decline in response may occur. Although some were explanted, most were revised, with most of the revisions functional on follow-up. Familiarity with impedance evaluation and development of algorithms for postimplant management are essential for troubleshooting and maintenance of the device.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.