4.7 Article

Therapeutic effects of Low intensity extracorporeal low energy shock wave therapy (LiESWT) on stress urinary incontinence

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62471-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 105-2314-B-037-043-MY3, MOST 107-2314-B-037-008, MOST 106-2314-B-037-083]
  2. Department of Medical Research, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital grant [KMUH-104-4R45, KMUH-105-5R44, KMUH-106-6R60, KMUH-107-7R60]
  3. Ministry of Health and Welfare [MOHW107-TDU-B-212-123006]
  4. Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang Hospital grant [Kmhk-106-008, Kmhk-107-024]
  5. Kaohsiung Medical University Research Center Grant [KMU-TC108A02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effects of Low intensity extracorporeal low energy shock wave therapy (LiESWT) on stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The investigation was a single-arm, open-label, multicentre study conducted in Taiwan. 50 female patients with SUI received LiESWT-treated with 0.25 mJ/mm(2) intensity, 3000 pulses, and 3 pulses/second, once weekly for 4-weeks (W4) and 8-weeks (W8). The pad test, uroflowmetry, life quality questionnaires, and 3-day urinary diary measurement were performed before and after LiESWT intervention. The results revealed that 8-week of LiESWT treatment meaningfully improved urine leakage (pad test), maximum flow rate, post-voided residual urine, average urine volume, functional bladder capacity, urinary frequency, urgency symptom, and nocturia, which also persisted to show significant improvements at 1-month follow up (F1). Moreover, bothersome questionnaires scores were significantly improved at W4, W8, and F1 as compared to the baseline (W0). These results indicated that 8 weeks of LiESWT attenuated SUI symptoms on physical activity, reduced bladder leaks and overactive bladder (OAB), implying that LiESWT brought significant improvement in the quality of life. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04059133).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据