Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Effectiveness of functional magnetic versus electrical stimulation in women with urinary incontinence.
Eura Medicophys. 2005 Dec; 41(4):297-301.EM

Abstract

AIM

Urinary incontinence is one of the most common medical complaints in women. We here propose to evaluate and compare the effects of 2 conservative treatment modalities, functional electrical stimulation (FES) and functional magnetic stimulation (FMS).

METHODS

We studied 22 female patients with urinary incontinence and divided them into 2 treatment groups (14 patients in the FES and 8 in the FMS group). The mean age of the patients in the FES group was 51.14+/-11.9 and in the FMS group 42.25+/-6.9 years. Functional electrical stimulation was applied continuously at 10 Hz and 30-50 Hz in urge and stress urinary incontinence respectively. In mixed urinary incontinence stimulation was applied at 10 Hz for 15 min and at 50 Hz for 15 min. The treatment sessions were for 20 min, 3 times a week for 6-8 weeks (12 with mixed, 2 with stress incontinence). FMS was applied by a magnetic chair, twice weekly for 6 weeks (6 with mixed, 1 with stress urinary and 1 with urge urinary incontinence). The efficacy of the treatment was judged from patient impressions, records in urinary diaries, results of 1 h pad test, perineometry value and digital palpation score.

RESULTS

The perineometry value, digital palpation score increased significantly during stimulation compared with prestimulation levels in both groups (P<0.05). For the pad test significant improvement was also noted in both groups (P<0.05). The urinary diaries and frequency of micturition were significantly more cured or improved in the FES group (P<0.05). However, reduction of the frequency of nocturnal micturition wasn't significant in either group (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both FES and FMS treatments were effective. FMS does not involve intravaginal stimulation and it is twice a week. Although FMS is not often used it is more cost effective than FES. In order to have exact knowledge of this issue; more research than has been done in a greater number of subjects is required.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16474284

Citation

Bölükbaş, N, et al. "Effectiveness of Functional Magnetic Versus Electrical Stimulation in Women With Urinary Incontinence." Europa Medicophysica, vol. 41, no. 4, 2005, pp. 297-301.
Bölükbaş N, Vural M, Karan A, et al. Effectiveness of functional magnetic versus electrical stimulation in women with urinary incontinence. Eura Medicophys. 2005;41(4):297-301.
Bölükbaş, N., Vural, M., Karan, A., Yalçin, O., & Eskiyurt, N. (2005). Effectiveness of functional magnetic versus electrical stimulation in women with urinary incontinence. Europa Medicophysica, 41(4), 297-301.
Bölükbaş N, et al. Effectiveness of Functional Magnetic Versus Electrical Stimulation in Women With Urinary Incontinence. Eura Medicophys. 2005;41(4):297-301. PubMed PMID: 16474284.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Effectiveness of functional magnetic versus electrical stimulation in women with urinary incontinence. AU - Bölükbaş,N, AU - Vural,M, AU - Karan,A, AU - Yalçin,O, AU - Eskiyurt,N, PY - 2006/2/14/pubmed PY - 2006/3/31/medline PY - 2006/2/14/entrez SP - 297 EP - 301 JF - Europa medicophysica JO - Eura Medicophys VL - 41 IS - 4 N2 - AIM: Urinary incontinence is one of the most common medical complaints in women. We here propose to evaluate and compare the effects of 2 conservative treatment modalities, functional electrical stimulation (FES) and functional magnetic stimulation (FMS). METHODS: We studied 22 female patients with urinary incontinence and divided them into 2 treatment groups (14 patients in the FES and 8 in the FMS group). The mean age of the patients in the FES group was 51.14+/-11.9 and in the FMS group 42.25+/-6.9 years. Functional electrical stimulation was applied continuously at 10 Hz and 30-50 Hz in urge and stress urinary incontinence respectively. In mixed urinary incontinence stimulation was applied at 10 Hz for 15 min and at 50 Hz for 15 min. The treatment sessions were for 20 min, 3 times a week for 6-8 weeks (12 with mixed, 2 with stress incontinence). FMS was applied by a magnetic chair, twice weekly for 6 weeks (6 with mixed, 1 with stress urinary and 1 with urge urinary incontinence). The efficacy of the treatment was judged from patient impressions, records in urinary diaries, results of 1 h pad test, perineometry value and digital palpation score. RESULTS: The perineometry value, digital palpation score increased significantly during stimulation compared with prestimulation levels in both groups (P<0.05). For the pad test significant improvement was also noted in both groups (P<0.05). The urinary diaries and frequency of micturition were significantly more cured or improved in the FES group (P<0.05). However, reduction of the frequency of nocturnal micturition wasn't significant in either group (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both FES and FMS treatments were effective. FMS does not involve intravaginal stimulation and it is twice a week. Although FMS is not often used it is more cost effective than FES. In order to have exact knowledge of this issue; more research than has been done in a greater number of subjects is required. SN - 0014-2573 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16474284/Effectiveness_of_functional_magnetic_versus_electrical_stimulation_in_women_with_urinary_incontinence_ L2 - http://www.minervamedica.it/index2.t?show=R33Y2005N04A0297 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -