3.9 Article

A peripheric neuromodulation technique for curing detrusor overactivity: Stoller afferent neurostimulation

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/00365590510031147

关键词

detrusor overactivity; peripheric neuromodulation; Stoller afferent neurostimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To perform Stoller afferent neuro stimulation (SANS) with and without a low-dose anticholinergic (oxybutynin hydrochloride) in patients with detrusor overactivity and compare the results obtained with the two therapeutic approaches. Material and methods. A total of 43 patients with symptoms of detrusor overactivity (frequency, urgency, urge incontinence) underwent urodynamic studies (UDS). Those in whom UDS revealed phasic detrusor overactivity were evaluated using a quality of life questionnaire and voiding diaries. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group 1 received SANS alone, Group 2 received SANS combined with a low-dose anticholinergic (5 mg of oral oxybutynin hydrochloride). Both groups were re-evaluated following 8 weeks of therapy. Results. There were 21 patients in Group I and 22 in Group 2. The treatment response rate was 61.6% and 83.2% in Groups I and 2, respectively. In both groups, the best symptomatic improvements were obtained in patients with urge incontinence. The percentage decreases in the mean number of symptoms of frequency and urgency were 36.7% and 46.1%, respectively in Group 1 and 44.2% and 61.1%, respectively in Group 2. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the effects on frequency and urgency between the two groups. The anticholinergic drug was well tolerated by all patients in Group 2. One patient reported local tenderness, and a small hematoma developed in another following SANS therapy. Conclusion. SANS is an easy and inexpensive therapeutic method with low morbidity in patients with an overactive bladder. Combination with a low-dose anticholinergic increases the success rate without causing any significant side-effects.

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

3.9
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