Urology research & practice · 2023
Efficacy of Tibial Nerve Stimulation in Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Among Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tahmasbi Fateme, Hosseini Samaneh, Hajebrahimi Sakineh, Heris Reza Mosaddeghi, Salehi-Pourmehr Hanieh
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to systematically review the current literature on the effects of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on multiple sclerosis-induced neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to September 2022. Metaanalysis was carried out using the comprehensive meta-analysis tool.
RESULTS: Our inclusion criteria were met by 12 studies evaluating the effects of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation/transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on multiple sclerosis-induced neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. Comparing the postintervention results to the baseline showed that the rate of frequency was decreased in both percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation groups after intervention. The overall mean change of tibial nerve stimulation on frequency was -2.623 (95% CI: -3.58, -1.66; P < .001, I 2 : 87.04) among 6 eligible studies. The post-void residual was decreased after treatment in both methods of tibial nerve stimulation, with an overall mean difference of -31.13 mL (95% CI: -50.62, -11.63; P=.002, I 2 : 71.81). The other urinary parameters, including urgency (mean difference: -4.69; 95% CI: -7.64, -1.74; P < .001, I 2 : 92.16), maximum cystometric capacity (mean difference: 70.95; 95% CI: 44.69, 97.21; P < .001, I 2 : 89.04), and nocturia (mean difference: -1.41; 95% CI: -2.22, 0.60; P < .001, I 2 : 95.15), were improved after intervention, too. However, the results of subgroup analysis showed no effect of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on urinary incontinence (mean difference: -2.00; 95% CI: -4.06, 0.06; P=.057, I 2 : 95.22) and nocturia (mean difference: -0.39; 95% CI: -1.15, 0.37; P=.315, I 2 : 84.01). In terms of mean voided volume, the evidence was related to only percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation with a mean change of 75.01 mL (95% CI: -39.40, 110.61; P < .001, I 2 : 85.04).
CONCLUSION: Although the current literature suggests that tibial nerve electrostimulation might be an effective method for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, the evidence base is poor and derived from small, mostly nonrandomized trials with a high risk of bias and confounding.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to September 2022. Metaanalysis was carried out using the comprehensive meta-analysis tool.
RESULTS: Our inclusion criteria were met by 12 studies evaluating the effects of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation/transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on multiple sclerosis-induced neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. Comparing the postintervention results to the baseline showed that the rate of frequency was decreased in both percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation groups after intervention. The overall mean change of tibial nerve stimulation on frequency was -2.623 (95% CI: -3.58, -1.66; P < .001, I 2 : 87.04) among 6 eligible studies. The post-void residual was decreased after treatment in both methods of tibial nerve stimulation, with an overall mean difference of -31.13 mL (95% CI: -50.62, -11.63; P=.002, I 2 : 71.81). The other urinary parameters, including urgency (mean difference: -4.69; 95% CI: -7.64, -1.74; P < .001, I 2 : 92.16), maximum cystometric capacity (mean difference: 70.95; 95% CI: 44.69, 97.21; P < .001, I 2 : 89.04), and nocturia (mean difference: -1.41; 95% CI: -2.22, 0.60; P < .001, I 2 : 95.15), were improved after intervention, too. However, the results of subgroup analysis showed no effect of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation on urinary incontinence (mean difference: -2.00; 95% CI: -4.06, 0.06; P=.057, I 2 : 95.22) and nocturia (mean difference: -0.39; 95% CI: -1.15, 0.37; P=.315, I 2 : 84.01). In terms of mean voided volume, the evidence was related to only percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation with a mean change of 75.01 mL (95% CI: -39.40, 110.61; P < .001, I 2 : 85.04).
CONCLUSION: Although the current literature suggests that tibial nerve electrostimulation might be an effective method for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, the evidence base is poor and derived from small, mostly nonrandomized trials with a high risk of bias and confounding.