Does sacral pulsed electromagnetic field therapy have a better effect than transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with neurogenic overactive bladder?

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on neurogenic overactive bladder dysfunction (OAB) in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI).Patients and methodsIn all, 80 patients [50 men and 30 women, with a mean (SD) age of 40.15 (8.76) years] with neurogenic OAB secondary to suprasacral SCI were included. They underwent urodynamic studies (UDS) before and after treatment. Patients were divided into two equal groups: Group A, comprised 40 patients who received 20 min of TENS (10 Hz with a 700 s generated pulse), three times per week for 20 sessions; Group B, comprised 40 patients who received PEMFT (15 Hz with 50% intensity output for 5 s/min for 20 min), three times per week for 20 sessions.ResultsIn Group B, there was a significant increase in the maximum cystometric capacity (P < 0.001), volume at first uninhibited detrusor contraction (P < 0.002), and maximum urinary flow rate (P < 0.02).ConclusionThe UDS showed that the effects of PEMFT in patients with neurogenic OAB secondary to suprasacral SCI was better than TENS for inducing an inhibitory effect on neurogenic detrusor overactivity.

The effectiveness of magnetic stimulation for patients with pelvic floor dysfunction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…One study by Reilly showed that there was no significant difference between the MS therapy and sham intervention with regard to MVV, number of voids per day, pad test, VAS, and KHQ score. In the trials by Fergany et al comparing MS therapy and TENS intervention in patients with OAB symptoms, there was a significant improvement in MCC, first uninhibited detrusor contraction, and maximum urinary flow rate after treatment ( P = 0.001, P = 0.002, and P = 0.021, respectively).…”

“…Yamanishi et al compared MS with FES, Fergany et al compared MS with TENS, and remaining studies compared MS with sham. One study did not document the treatment of sham device, two studies used the 20.4% of active stimulation, two studies utilized the sham stimulating coil as the experimental group, one study applied 1 Hz as the sham stimulation, one study performed the sham stimulation with a thin deflective aluminium plate inserted in the chair, and remaining studies adopted stimulation with inactive device as the experimental group.…”

“…Two RCTs ( n = 143) reported the effects of MS therapy compared with other therapies for OAB symptoms. One study by Reilly showed that there was no significant difference between the MS therapy and sham intervention with regard to MVV, number of voids per day, pad test, VAS, and KHQ score.…”

“…Finally, 20 RCTs met all eligibility criteria and were selected for this systematic review. [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]…”

“…Two RCTs 38,40 were carried out in Egypt. Six RCTs 26,30,[32][33][34]41 were performed in New Zealand, Italy, Malaysia, United States, Switzerland, Germany, respectively.…”