4.6 Review

Efficacy and Safety of Sacral and Percutaneous Tibial Neuromodulation in Non-neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction and Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Systematic Review of the Literature

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 73, 期 3, 页码 406-418

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.11.002

关键词

Sacral neuromodulation; Tibial nerve stimulation; Overactive bladder; Chronic non-obstructive urinary retention; Lower urinary tract dysfunction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Neuromodulation is considered in patients with non-neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) not responsive to conservative treatment. Objective: To systematically review the available studies on efficacy and safety of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in non-neurogenic LUTDs not responsive to conservative treatments. Evidence acquisition: A literature research was conducted in PubMed/Medline and Scopus, restricted to articles in English, published between January 1998 and June 2017, with at least 20 patients and 6 mo of follow-up. Evidence synthesis: Twenty-one reports were identified. Concerning SNM, the improvement of >= 50% in leakage episodes ranged widely between 29% and 76%. Overall dry rate ranged between 43% and 56%. Overall success/improvement rate in PTNS varied between 54% and 59%. Symptom improvement or efficacy in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome patients appeared to be lower compared with other indications in both techniques. Safety data showed fewer side effects in patients submitted to PTNS. Conclusions: Neuromodulation gives good results and is a safe therapy for patients with overactive bladder or chronic nonobstructive urinary retention with long-lasting efficacy. Moreover, PTNS has been shown to have good success rates and fewer side effects compared with SNM. These data have to be confirmed with long-term follow-up. (c) 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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