{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024261603375527425, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006329113924050633, 'mean_word_length': 5.726950354609929, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?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': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sacral neuromodulation outcomes in neurourological voiding dysfunction

  
Objective: To demonstrate the changes in the urodynamic parameters of patients with posterior sacral neuromodulation and compare these changes to their pre-implantation parameters. 
Design: Observational, retrospective, comparative study of related variables. Urodynamic studies were performed on neurological patients who were candidates for posterior sacral neuromodulation (n=9). The candidates for a definitive neuromodulator underwent comparative statistical analysis using student´s t test for related samples. We evaluated on pressure-flow study: maximum flow, Pdet max, effectiveness of voiding, and compliance. 
Results: Statistically significant results were found in the urodynamic measurements at peak flow (Qmax p<0.002) and in changes in detrusor pressures (p<0.001), there were no statistically significant differences found in voiding effectiveness (p=0.02).  
Limitations of the study-implication: A larger number of patients are needed to compare our results to international reports, and to adjust the time of implantation after neurological lesions, since our sample was very heterogeneous. 
Originality: There are no reports of sacral neuromodulation in Mexican patients exclusively with neurological disorders as described in other populations; this sample is being described as the largest population of neuromodulator carriers with neurourological diseases in Mexico. 
Conclusions: In spite of not finding differences in the effectiveness of voiding in our sample, this difference is of great clinical importance since it means a decrease in or suspension of clean intermittent catheterization, which is probably also reflected in the changes of the detrusor pressures that are within the limits and has benefits for the patient as protection of the upper urinary tract and a decrease of expenses.