Perineal and rectal nerve recruitment order varies during pudendal neurostimulator implant surgery

Introduction

Pudendal nerve stimulation (PNS) is an off-label use of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for targeting pelvic pain and bladder symptoms^1-3. Studies have shown that patients whose symptoms are refractory to SNM can be salvaged with PNS leading to improvement of pelvic pain, voiding, and urinary incontinence^4,5. However, there is limited literature on the direct effects of PNS on the lower urinary tract^6,7, in particular during intraoperative placement.

The pudendal nerve originates from the S2, S3, and S4 spinal nerve roots. It typically forms a primary trunk and then splits into the inferior rectal nerve, perineal nerve, and genital nerve primary branches^8-10. The genital nerve, which is sensory only, innervates the external genitalia. The perineal nerve innervates pelvic floor, urethra, and perineal muscles, while the rectal nerve innervates the external anal sphincter (EAS) and levator ani¹¹. Pudendal nerve anatomical structure is diverse^8,12. Near the sacrospinous ligament, one to three nerve trunks may be found with different branching points¹². The heterogeneity of pudendal nerve anatomy could pose potential obstacles during a PNS surgical approach and may influence the lead placement and variation in results. No study has investigated the activation patterns of the pudendal nerve among perineal and rectal motor responses during PNS implant surgery.

The PNS implant typically involves two stages of outpatient surgery, following standard SNM procedures. During surgical access to the pudendal nerve in the stage-1 implant procedure, patients are prone and sedated while surgeons use anatomical landmarks, fluoroscopic guidance, and EAS electromyography (EMG) to place the quadripolar lead^3,7,13. The EAS EMG monitoring only accounts for the rectal nerve motor responses, neglecting the perineal nerve. An optimal lead position is parallel to the main pudendal trunk about 5 mm away, with at least 2 electrodes consistently eliciting EAS contractions at low stimulation amplitude without causing leg movements. After approximately 2 weeks if the patient’s primary symptoms are reduced by at least 50% an implantable pulse generator will be implanted during a stage-2 surgery.

In this study, we employed a multi-sensor pressure catheter within the urethra during the stage-1 pudendal neurostimulator implant. This allowed us to examine changes in urethral pressure caused by stimulation and determine the relative order of pudendal nerve recruitment between the perineal and rectal nerves amongst participants. In this study we collected 13 intraoperative datasets from 12 female participants and compared pudendal nerve recruitment with clinical outcomes across this cohort.

Materials & Methods

Results

We collected data from 12 participants who underwent 13 successful pudendal neurostimulator implant surgeries (Table 1). The majority of participants were suffering from pelvic pain with concurrent bladder issues. We omitted three male study participants to focus on female-participant responses in this report. The timeline for subject participation in this study is given in Figure S2.

The average participant baseline pressures during a 10-second stable period before stimulation trials were 25.4 ± 9.9 cmH₂O in the bladder, 57.0 ± 13.7 cmH₂O in the proximal urethra/bladder neck, and 19.7 ± 7.9 cmH₂O in the distal urethra (Figure S3). There was a significant difference in the baseline pressure among lower urinary tract locations (one-way ANOVA; F-ratio 41.8125, p-value < 0.0001). The mean proximal urethra pressure was significantly different (t-test; p-value < 0.0001) than in the bladder and distal urethra. The highest pressure occurred in the bladder neck and proximal urethra in all participants, except one outlier (1008). The average maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP, the difference between the maximum urethral pressure and bladder pressure) across participants was 31.6 ± 9.3 cmH₂O.

Across participants, E0 and E1 generally had a lower EASt (1.1 ± 0.4 mA, 1.4 ± 1.0 mA respectively) than E2 and E3 (1.9 ± 1.1 mA, 2.1 ± 0.9 mA respectively). There were no differences in EASt between the electrodes (One-way ANOVA; F-ratio 2.56, p-value 0.068). E1 and E2 electrodes evoked EAS responses in all participants. In Table S1, EASt is given for each participant electrode, for monopolar 3 Hz, 210 μs stimulation.

Most of the participants had 4 pressure sensors in their functional urethra, except two participants (1001, 1024) who had 3 sensors. Eleven participants had measurable stimulation-driven urethral pressure changes. The maximum pressure change (max ΔP) for each urethral sensor is given in Figure 1. Two participants (1008, 1010) did not have urethra responses within our testing range. All 11 responding participants had stimulation-driven responses in the proximal urethra (top two proximal urethra sensors). Three of these participants (1007, 1012, 1021) did not have responses at the distal site(s). The largest max ΔP per participant was driven by E0 (30%), E1 (43%), or E2 (17%). In two participants (1002, 1022) we observed an elevated pressure tone in the proximal urethra when stimulation was ramped up (Figure S4). There was no difference in max ΔP among urethral pressure sensor sites (One-way ANOVA; F-ratio 0.65, p-value 0.59).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Maximum urethral ΔP across the urethra in each participant. Darkened cells indicate participants with only 3 functional sensors in their urethra. Light grey cells with X represent functional sensors without urethral pressure responses. Asterisks indicate pressure tone elevation in addition to 3 Hz responses (see Figure S4). Color-coding indicates the electrode which was used to generate the pressure.

We investigated the effect of increases in stimulation amplitude with respect to EASt (Figure 2). Across participants at 1x EASt, we observed an average ΔP normalized to the max ΔP of 4.7% across the urethral locations (2.3-7.1% per-position range). At 2x EASt the urethral responses consistently increased, with 11.9% reaching max ΔP. We observed 59.2% of the average normalized ΔP across the urethral locations at 2x EASt (52.2-67.9% per-position range). For 3x EASt and 4x EASt, most urethral responses increased (68.2-79.0% across urethra), however six participants had decreasing ΔP trends.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Normalized increases in urethral pressure per location across participants. Stimulation-driven ΔP was normalized to the maximum urethral ΔP response per urethral sensor per participant. Horizontal bars indicate group means.

The onset order of stimulation-driven urethral responses at different locations suggested the relative recruitment order of the distal pudendal branches. At a stimulation amplitude of 1x EASt, if urethral responses were already prominent, we classified it as having perineal nerve recruitment first (e.g., indicated by values above 0% ΔP at 1x EASt in Figure 2). Conversely, if no urethral responses were identified at 1x EASt then we classified it as having rectal nerve recruitment first. Two examples of nerve recruitment orders are given in Figure 3. The stimulation recruitment order was unique to individual participants, and different electrodes triggered various responses within a participant. Detailed information about the nerve recruitment order for each electrode among all participants is in Table S2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Nerve recruitment order examples. Participant 1020 had clear 3 Hz stimulation-driven responses at 1x EASt in the proximal urethra (A), and the distal urethra responses appeared at 2x EASt (B). For this participant, the proximal perineal nerve was recruited before the rectal nerve, with the distal perineal nerve recruited last. In participant 1016, there were no urethral responses at 1x EASt (C), and the distal urethra had clearer 3 Hz responses than the proximal urethra at 2x EASt (D). In this participant, the rectal nerve was the first recruited, followed by distal perineal and proximal perineal nerves. The slow oscillation in the pressure tone, generally lasting 5-7 seconds per cycle, is likely due to changes in pelvic floor pressure during different phases of respiration.

The nerve recruitment orders that most accurately represent the participant activation patterns are summarized in Table 2. Seven participants had the rectal nerve recruited first. Two participants (1001, 1012) demonstrated mixed initial nerve recruitment (perineal or rectal nerve) in response to stimulation on different electrodes. Four participants (1007, 1017, 1020, and 1022) had either the proximal or distal perineal nerve recruited before the rectal nerve.

Four participants exhibited a dominant proximal perineal nerve response (1007,1012, 1020, and 1021) while two participants had a dominant distal response (1016, 1017). Four participants had mixed responses to different electrodes (1001, 1019, 1022, 1024). Participant 1002 had all urethra sensors follow the same onset pattern (Table S2).

Out of 13 participants, 11 had positive implant outcomes (Table 2). Overall, participants had statistically significant improvement in pain (fGUPI) and bladder symptoms (Incontinence – M-ISI; Bladder – AUASI) after the PNS implant. There was no clear trend for bowel symptoms (CRAD-8) or sexual function (FSFI), which were not part of the initial symptoms for which participants were receiving the neurostimulator (Table 1). The order of recruitment for the perineal or rectal nerve did not have a relationship to symptom changes based on the overlap in 95% confidence intervals for each recruitment group (Table S3).

Discussion

This was the first study to collect urethral pressure responses during pudendal neurostimulator implant surgeries. The intraoperative data collection allowed us to observe real-time stimulation-driven urethral responses, in addition to EAS EMG, and provided subject-specific pudendal nerve recruitment orders. The various pudendal nerve recruitment orders across participants (Table 2, Table S2) suggests a need to further investigate urethral activation patterns during pudendal nerve stimulation, which may help guide subject-specific stimulator programming and electrode placement.

We used a multi-sensor catheter to measure semi-continuous pressure in the lower urinary tract while participants were sedated in a prone position. Our baseline bladder pressure measurements (Figure S3) were consistent with prior studies that had similar participant age ranges (18-24 cmH₂O)^21,22. However, our maximum baseline urethral pressures differed from prior studies, which may have been related to the participant position. Previous studies have reported a maximum urethral pressure ranges of 68-84 cmH₂O in a semi-seated position²¹ and 67-74 cmH₂O in a semi-lithotomy position²², as compared to our average maximum measurement of 57 cmH₂O (range 41-86 cmH₂O, without an outlier). The prone position used in our study, which is least influenced by gravity, results in a lower pressure placed on the pelvic floor. This aligns with the established understanding that position can affect urethral pressure profiles²³ and is the likely factor in the lower resting MUCP observed in our study (32 cmH₂O) as compared to a prior study with the Manoscan catheter (59 cmH₂O)¹⁴. Age, bladder filling state, and bladder underlying condition also all contribute to differences in urethral pressure profile^21-24 and may have been a factor here.

Of our thirteen participants, seven were found to have the rectal nerve recruited first (Table 2 and Table S2). EAS EMG is a primary indicator of lead position and our observation that many participants had the rectal nerve recruited first is not surprising. Still, four participants had the perineal nerve recruited before the rectal nerve across rectal-responsive electrodes and the other two participants had a specific electrode with a perineal response first (Table S2). These findings imply that perineal nerve responses could serve as a useful indicator for pudendal implant electrode placement. In support of this, participant 1022, who lacked EAS responses at E3 within our tested amplitudes (Table S1), had perineal urethral responses (Table S2). The selective activation of the perineal nerve in this participant might be attributable to the E3 electrode in proximity to the pudendal nerve after the branching of the rectal nerve. Further investigation focusing on the variability of pudendal nerve branching anatomy and the relative positions of implanted electrodes to the nerves are necessary for understanding PNS activation patterns.

We observed that increases in stimulation amplitude above EASt did not elicit proportional increases in urethral responses (Figure 2). In seven participants, twice EASt stimulation amplitudes generated 66-100% of maximum urethral responses. Intriguingly, urethral responses decreased in a few participants when EASt amplitudes increased beyond threefold of EASt. This observation suggests that amplitudes above twice EASt may not trigger proportional urethral responses. A recent study with SNM patients presented similar findings: an increase in stimulation amplitude from 2x to 5x motor threshold amplitude only induced a 5% increase in sacral evoked responses²⁵. These observations may have implications for device programming guidelines, as high stimulation amplitude may result in discomfort and unintentional activation of non-target nerves. A more extensive study investigating how participants with pudendal nerve implants utilize their devices at home may provide valuable insights into any relationships between stimulation settings and patients’ sensations.

There were a few limitations to consider in our PNS study. First, our study participant group was not racially or ethnically diverse. This was due to the pool of patients referred to the treatment plan from our collaborating clinic. Second, our data collection was confined to the duration of the pudendal implant surgeries. To ensure minimal interruption to the surgical procedures, we did not evaluate all potential electrode combinations or stimulation parameters.

Conclusion

This study showed that female participants with pelvic pain and bladder symptoms had positive outcomes from the pudendal neuromodulation. There was no distinct correlation between the initial activation of either the perineal or rectal nerves and the change in bladder or pain symptoms. By monitoring stimulation-driven urethral responses intraoperatively, which are neglected in the current clinical approach, we were able to explore the pudendal nerve recruitment order. The recruitment order could assist in tailoring stimulation programs and parameters to individual patient needs, thereby enhancing treatment success. Altogether, this study broadened our understanding of pudendal neuromodulation by investigating intraoperative urethral responses and nerve activation patterns.