2014
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9391
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Systematic review of tibial nerve stimulation to treat faecal incontinence

Abstract: PTNS and TTNS result in significant improvements in some outcome measures; however, TTNS was not superior to sham stimulation in a large, adequately powered, RCT. As no adequate RCT of PTNS versus sham has been conducted, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding this treatment.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
43
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
3
43
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Percutaneous TNS was found to be effective in 37-100% of patients with idiopathic overactive bladder, in 41-100% of those with nonobstructive E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y X X X ( 2 0 1 5 ) X X X -X X X urinary retention, and in upon 100% of patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome, children with overactive bladder or dysfunctional voiding, and in patients with NLUTD [7]. In addition, TNS might improve fecal incontinence [33], highlighting the potential in the neurological patient often with both lower urinary tract and bowel dysfunction, although there is no high level of evidence study assessing the combined dysfunction. The exact mechanisms of action of neuromodulation procedures remain to be elucidated, but modulation of spinal cord reflexes and brain networks by peripheral afferents seems to be involved [34].…”
Section: Findings In the Context Of Existing Evidencementioning
confidence: 96%
“…Percutaneous TNS was found to be effective in 37-100% of patients with idiopathic overactive bladder, in 41-100% of those with nonobstructive E U R O P E A N U R O L O G Y X X X ( 2 0 1 5 ) X X X -X X X urinary retention, and in upon 100% of patients with chronic pelvic pain syndrome, children with overactive bladder or dysfunctional voiding, and in patients with NLUTD [7]. In addition, TNS might improve fecal incontinence [33], highlighting the potential in the neurological patient often with both lower urinary tract and bowel dysfunction, although there is no high level of evidence study assessing the combined dysfunction. The exact mechanisms of action of neuromodulation procedures remain to be elucidated, but modulation of spinal cord reflexes and brain networks by peripheral afferents seems to be involved [34].…”
Section: Findings In the Context Of Existing Evidencementioning
confidence: 96%
“…PTNS has been shown to be effective for fecal incontinence (FI) and shows promise for treating chronic pelvic pain. A recent systematic review showed that 63-82 % of patients reported greater than 50 % reduction in the number of FI episodes and that PTNS improved the quality of life of patients with FI [19]. A randomized study examining the effectiveness of PTNS in treating patients with chronic non-bacterial prostatitis (CP)/ chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) showed improvement in the mean NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index and Visual Analogue Score (p<0.001) [20].…”
Section: Ptns For Fecal Incontinence and Pelvic Painmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Nevertheless, most published TTNS and PTNS studies with FI patients are small, uncontrolled and with heterogeneous patient populations (9,14). Only 15-45% of those suffering from FI consult medical services, owing to embarrassment and lack of knowledge about potential treatments (32,33).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%