Tobias Gross1, Marc P Schneider2, Lucas M Bachmann3, Bertil F M Blok4, Jan Groen4, Lisette A 't Hoen4, David Castro-Diaz5, Bárbara Padilla Fernández5, Giulio Del Popolo6, Stefania Musco6, Rizwan Hamid7, Hazel Ecclestone7, Gilles Karsenty8, Véronique Phé9, Jürgen Pannek10, Thomas M Kessler11. 1. Department of Urology, University of Bern, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Neuro-Urology, Spinal Cord Injury Center & Research, University of Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland; Brain Research Institute, University of Zürich and Department of Health Sciences and Technology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Medignition Inc., Research Consultants, Zürich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Urology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospital of the Canary Island, Tenerife, Spain. 6. Department of Neuro-Urology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy. 7. Department of Neuro-Urology, London Spinal Injuries Centre, Stanmore, UK. 8. Department of Urology, Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France. 9. Department of Uro-Neurology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK. 10. Neuro-Urology, Swiss Paraplegic Center, Nottwil, Switzerland. 11. Neuro-Urology, Spinal Cord Injury Center & Research, University of Zürich, Balgrist University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: tkessler@gmx.ch.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a promising therapy for non-neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction and might also be a valuable option in patients with an underlying neurological disorder. OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of TENS for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening 1943 articles, 22 studies (two randomised controlled trials, 14 prospective cohort studies, five retrospective case series, and one case report) enrolling 450 patients were included. Eleven studies reported on acute TENS and 11 on chronic TENS. In acute TENS and chronic TENS, the mean increase of maximum cystometric capacity ranged from 69ml to 163ml and from 4ml to 156ml, the mean change of bladder volume at first detrusor overactivity from a decrease of 13ml to an increase of 175ml and from an increase of 10ml to 120ml, a mean decrease of maximum detrusor pressure at first detrusor overactivity from 18 cmH20 to 72 cmH20 and 8 cmH20, and a mean decrease of maximum storage detrusor pressure from 20 cmH20 to 58 cmH2O and from 3 cmH20 to 8 cmH2O, respectively. In chronic TENS, a mean decrease in the number of voids and leakages per 24h ranged from 1 to 3 and from 0 to 4, a mean increase of maximum flow rate from 2ml/s to 7ml/s, and a mean change of postvoid residual from an increase of 26ml to a decrease of 85ml. No TENS-related serious adverse events have been reported. Risk of bias and confounding was high in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary data suggest TENS might be effective and safe for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, the evidence base is poor and more reliable data from well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to make definitive conclusions. PATIENT SUMMARY: Early data suggest that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation might be effective and safe for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, but more reliable evidence is required.
CONTEXT: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a promising therapy for non-neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction and might also be a valuable option in patients with an underlying neurological disorder. OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of TENS for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening 1943 articles, 22 studies (two randomised controlled trials, 14 prospective cohort studies, five retrospective case series, and one case report) enrolling 450 patients were included. Eleven studies reported on acute TENS and 11 on chronic TENS. In acute TENS and chronic TENS, the mean increase of maximum cystometric capacity ranged from 69ml to 163ml and from 4ml to 156ml, the mean change of bladder volume at first detrusor overactivity from a decrease of 13ml to an increase of 175ml and from an increase of 10ml to 120ml, a mean decrease of maximum detrusor pressure at first detrusor overactivity from 18 cmH20 to 72 cmH20 and 8 cmH20, and a mean decrease of maximum storage detrusor pressure from 20 cmH20 to 58 cmH2O and from 3 cmH20 to 8 cmH2O, respectively. In chronic TENS, a mean decrease in the number of voids and leakages per 24h ranged from 1 to 3 and from 0 to 4, a mean increase of maximum flow rate from 2ml/s to 7ml/s, and a mean change of postvoid residual from an increase of 26ml to a decrease of 85ml. No TENS-related serious adverse events have been reported. Risk of bias and confounding was high in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although preliminary data suggest TENS might be effective and safe for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, the evidence base is poor and more reliable data from well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to make definitive conclusions. PATIENT SUMMARY: Early data suggest that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation might be effective and safe for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, but more reliable evidence is required.
Authors: Chiara Pavese; Marc P Schneider; Martin Schubert; Armin Curt; Giorgio Scivoletto; Enrico Finazzi-Agrò; Ulrich Mehnert; Doris Maier; Rainer Abel; Frank Röhrich; Norbert Weidner; Rüdiger Rupp; Alfons G Kessels; Lucas M Bachmann; Thomas M Kessler Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Dick Aw Janssen; Frank Mj Martens; Liesbeth L de Wall; Hendrikje Mk van Breda; John Pfa Heesakkers Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2017-06-01
Authors: Sven P R Luijten; Ilse M Groenendijk; Joan C Holstege; Chris I De Zeeuw; Wietske van der Zwaag; Bertil F M Blok Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Veronika Birkhäuser; Martina D Liechti; Collene E Anderson; Lucas M Bachmann; Sarah Baumann; Michael Baumberger; Lori A Birder; Sander M Botter; Silvan Büeler; Célia D Cruz; Gergely David; Patrick Freund; Susanne Friedl; Oliver Gross; Margret Hund-Georgiadis; Knut Husmann; Xavier Jordan; Miriam Koschorke; Lorenz Leitner; Eugenia Luca; Ulrich Mehnert; Sandra Möhr; Freschta Mohammadzada; Katia Monastyrskaya; Nikolai Pfender; Daniel Pohl; Helen Sadri; Andrea M Sartori; Martin Schubert; Kai Sprengel; Stephanie A Stalder; Jivko Stoyanov; Cornelia Stress; Aurora Tatu; Cécile Tawadros; Stéphanie van der Lely; Jens Wöllner; Veronika Zubler; Armin Curt; Jürgen Pannek; Martin W G Brinkhof; Thomas M Kessler Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: José Carlos Truzzi; Fernando Gonçalves de Almeida; Carlos Alberto Sacomani; Joceara Reis; Flávio Eduardo Trigo Rocha Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.541