4.4 Article

Posterior tibial nerve stimulation in the treatment of idiopathic nonobstructive voiding dysfunction

Journal

UROLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 3, Pages 567-572

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02378-6

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. To evaluate the effect of stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve in the treatment of voiding dysfunction. Methods. Thirty-nine patients with chronic voiding dysfunction necessitating clean intermittent catheterization were enrolled in a prospective multicenter trial in the Netherlands (n = 19) and Italy (n = 20). They underwent 12 weekly sessions of posterior tibial nerve stimulation. Frequency/volume charts, an incontinence quality-of-life instrument, and the MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey were completed at 0 and 12 weeks. Subjective success was defined by the patient's positive response resulting in a request to continue treatment. Efficacy was based on analysis of the frequency/volume charts comparing the baseline values with the data at 12 weeks. A reduction of 50% or more in total catheterized volume was considered as an objective success (primary outcome measurement). Results. Of the 39 patients, 23 (59%) chose to continue treatment. The frequency/volume charts showed a 50% decrease in total catheterized volume in 16 (41%) of 39 patients. Additionally, 10 patients (26%) noted a reduction of 25% to 50% in their total catheterized volume. For all patients, the total catheterized volume decreased by a mean of -228 mL (range -49 to -528). The incontinence quality-of-life instrument and Short-Form Health Survey parameters improved significantly. Conclusions. Percutaneous stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve seems to be an effective, minimally invasive option worth trying in patients with idiopathic voiding dysfunction. Improvement was seen in objective micturition parameters, as well as in subjective quality-of-life data. (C) 2003, Elsevier Science Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available