4.7 Review

Efficacy of Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence: A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11175191

Keywords

fecal incontinence; tibial nerve; electric stimulation therapy; transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation; adult

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review aims to determine the effectiveness of posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in reducing episodes of fecal incontinence in adults. However, the results are inconclusive and more research is needed to support its recommendation.
Fecal incontinence is a condition that carries high social stigmatization and a determining factor in the quality of life of the person who suffers from it. Its etiology is multifactorial and treatment includes surgical and conservative measures, including stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve. The aim of this review is to determine whether posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) is more effective than other treatments in reducing episodes of fecal incontinence in adults. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials that analyzed different approaches and comparisons with other treatments in adults without neurological or metabolic diseases was carried out, analyzing, fundamentally, the reduction of episodes of fecal incontinence. In general, a reduction in fecal incontinence episodes is observed in the experimental groups compared with the control groups, although these differences are not significant in most studies. The results regarding the effectiveness of PTNS in reducing episodes of fecal incontinence compared to other treatments are not entirely conclusive, although benefits are observed regarding the stimulation of sacral roots. More well-designed studies with a long-term follow-up of the results are needed so that the recommendation of this treatment can be generalized.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available