Magnetic stimulation in the treatment of female urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis This systematic review analyzes published studies about magnetic stimulation (MS) treatment for UUI and determines whether this treatment is effective and non-invasive. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. The international standard for reporting results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) was used to guide the methodology of this systematic review. The key search terms were as follows: “magnetic stimulation” and “urinary incontinence.” We limited the time frame to articles published from 1998, when the FDA approved MS as a conservative treatment option for UI. The last search was performed on 5 August 2022. Results Two authors independently reviewed 234 article titles and abstracts, of which only 5 fitted the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies included women with UUI, but every study had different diagnostic and entry criteria for patients. They also differed in their treatment regimens and methodological approaches to assessing the efficacy of treating UUI with MS, which made it impossible to compare the results. Nonetheless, all five studies established that MS is an effective and non-invasive way of treating UUI. Conclusions The systematic literature review led to the conclusion that MS is an effective and conservative way of treating UUI. Despite this, literature in this area is lacking. Further randomized controlled trials are needed, with standardized entry criteria, UUI diagnostics, MS programs, and standardized protocols to measure the efficacy of MS in UUI treatment, with a longer follow-up period for post-treatment patients.

The Impact of Extracorporeal Magnetic Stimulation as Addition to Mirabegron in Overactive Bladder Treatment in Women: A Single-Centre Randomized Sham-Controlled Study

“…A recent systematic review, published in 2023, evaluated ExMI for the treatment of female urge urinary incontinence (UUI). While the authors emphasized that the literature in this area is lacking, they also concluded that ExMI is an effective conservative method of UUI treatment [29]. Another systematic review from 2019 also indicated that ExMI is effective in urinary incontinence treatment.…”

Evaluation of Possible Side Effects in the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence with Magnetic Stimulation

“…They observed statistically significantly fewer leaks/3 days, less urine loss on a 24 h pad test, higher QoL scores, and lower ICIQ scores [ 31 ]. In turn, a systematic review by Antić et al summarized the efficacy of UUI treatment with MS [ 5 ].…”

“…In addition, longer follow-ups are needed. These are issues that should urgently be addressed in further clinical trials [ 5 , 23 ].…”

“…Several types of UI are known, and, based on the basic pathophysiological mechanisms that cause their onset, they are roughly divided into stress UI (urinary incontinence due to pressure or upon exertion), urgency UI (urgency urinary incontinence (UUI)), mixed UI (with characteristics of stress and urge UI), and overflow UI (involuntary release of urine due to an overfull bladder). In practice, however, the borders between different UI types are often blurred due to mixed etiology [ 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Nevertheless, UUI is only part of the syndrome known as overactive bladder (OAB) [ 1 ].…”

“…On the other hand, magnetic stimulation (MS) is an approach to the conservative treatment of urinary incontinence, which was approved by the FDA in 1998 as a treatment option for UI with pelvic floor muscle stimulation [ 16 ]. Given the drawbacks of other conservative treatments for UI, such as the side effects of pharmacotherapy and the invasiveness of electrostimulation, vaginal cones, botulinum toxin A injections, percutaneous stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve (TMS), sacral nerve stimulation, bulking agent injections, and nonabsorbable transvaginal mesh and midurethral slings, research on MS is warranted, considering its inherent advantages: a non-invasive nature and patient acceptability [ 5 ].…”