British journal of urology · 1994
Electrical pelvic floor stimulation by percutaneous implantable electrode.
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.
Ishigooka M, Hashimoto T, Sasagawa I, Nakada T, Handa Y
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe a clinical experience of chronic pelvic floor stimulation using a percutaneous implantable electrode for the treatment of urinary incontinence.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pelvic floor stimulation using a percutaneous procedure was performed in 10 patients who were suffering from urinary incontinence due to overactive detrusor function. After implantation of the electrode chronic stimulation was instituted with a portable external electrical stimulator.
RESULTS: Four to 16 weeks of maximal electrical stimulation improved urinary incontinence in eight of 10 patients. In two of these eight patients incontinence disappeared as measured subjectively. Urodynamic investigations demonstrated a significantly increased volume at the first unstable contraction (P < 0.01) in all patients. One of 30 electrodes migrated during the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION: Inhibition of detrusor overactivity was obtained using this procedure. Response appeared to be constant during chronic stimulation. This procedure appears to provide stable and reliable stimulation for chronic treatment of urinary incontinence and may be an alternative to electrical pelvic floor stimulation.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pelvic floor stimulation using a percutaneous procedure was performed in 10 patients who were suffering from urinary incontinence due to overactive detrusor function. After implantation of the electrode chronic stimulation was instituted with a portable external electrical stimulator.
RESULTS: Four to 16 weeks of maximal electrical stimulation improved urinary incontinence in eight of 10 patients. In two of these eight patients incontinence disappeared as measured subjectively. Urodynamic investigations demonstrated a significantly increased volume at the first unstable contraction (P < 0.01) in all patients. One of 30 electrodes migrated during the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION: Inhibition of detrusor overactivity was obtained using this procedure. Response appeared to be constant during chronic stimulation. This procedure appears to provide stable and reliable stimulation for chronic treatment of urinary incontinence and may be an alternative to electrical pelvic floor stimulation.