4.6 Article

Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in the treatment of refractory overactive bladder syndrome: is maintenance treatment necessary?

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 97, Issue 3, Pages 547-550

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06055.x

Keywords

bladder; tibial nerve; overactive bladder; therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine the effect of a pause in percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in successfully treated patients with an overactive bladder (OAB), and the reproducibility of successful treatment when restored. Patients and Methods Eleven patients (mean age 51 years) with refractory OAB (more than seven voids and/or three or more urge incontinence episodes per day) were successfully treated with PTNS, and then discontinued treatment. Patients completed bladder diaries and quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires (Short Form-36 and I-QoL) before (T1) and after a 6-week pause (T2) of maintenance PTNS, and again after re-treatment (T3). The first objective was defined as a >= 50% increase in the incontinence episodes and/or voiding frequency in the bladder diary after T2. The second objective was defined as >= 50% fewer incontinence episodes and/or voiding frequency in bladder diary after T3. Results At T2, seven of the 11 patients had a >= 50% increase in incontinence episodes and/or voiding frequency in the bladder diary. The mean voided volume, nocturia, number of incontinence episodes and incontinence severity deteriorated significantly (P < 0.05). At T3, nine patients had >= 50% fewer incontinence episodes and/or voiding frequency in the bladder diary. Nocturia, the number of incontinence episodes, incontinence severity, mean voided volume and quality of life improved significantly (P < 0.05). Conclusons Continuous therapy is necessary in patients with OAB treated successfully by PTNS. The efficacy of PTNS can be reproduced in patients formerly treated successfully.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available