{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015286624203821656, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016560509554140127, 'mean_word_length': 5.685106382978724, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 1, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sacral electrical neuromodulation as an alternative treatment option for lower urinary tract dysfunction.

Temporary electrical stimulation using anal or vaginal electrodes and an external pulse generator has been a treatment modality for urinary urge incontinence for nearly three decades. In 1981 Tanagho and Schmidt introduced chronic electrical stimulation of the sacral spinal nerves using a permanently implanted sacral foramen electrode and a battery powered pulse generator for treatment of different kinds of lower urinary tract dysfunction, refractory to conservative treatment. At our department chronic unilateral electrical stimulation of the S3 sacral spinal nerve has been used for treatment of vesi-courethral dysfunction in 43 patients with a mean postoperative follow up of 43,6 months. Lasting symptomatic improvement by more than 50 % could be achieved in 13 of 18 patients with motor urge incontinence (72,2 %) and in 18 of the 21 patients with urinary retention (85,7 %). Implants offer a sustained therapeutic effect to treatment responders, which is not achieved by temporary neuromodulation. Chronic neuromodulation should be predominantly considered in patients with urinary retention. Furthermore in patients with motor urge incontinence, refusing temporary techniques or in those requiring too much effort to achieve a sustained clinical effect. Despite high initial costs chronic sacral neuromodulation is an economically reasonable treatment option in the long run, when comparing it to the more invasive remaining therapeutic alternatives.