Advertisement

Der Urologe

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 530–535 | Cite as

Neurogene oder idiopathische Detrusorüberaktivität nach erfolgloser antimuskarinerger Therapie

Klinische Wertigkeit der externen temporären Elektrostimulation
  • J. PannekEmail author
  • S. Janek
  • J. Noldus
Originalien

Zusammenfassung

Standardbehandlung der symptomatischen Detrusorüberaktivität ist die antimuskarinerge Medikation. Unerwünschte Wirkungen und mangelnder Therapieerfolg führen mittelfristig bei mehr als der Hälfte der Patienten zum Therapieabbruch. Wir evaluierten den klinischen Nutzen der funktionellen externen Elektrostimulation (FES) als „Second-line-Therapie“ bei Patienten mit symptomatischer idiopathischer oder neurogener Detrusorüberaktivität.

In einer retrospektiven Studie wurden die Daten von 52 Patienten (38 Frauen, 14 Männer) bezüglich klinischem Erfolg der FES mindestens 1 Jahr nach Therapie ausgewertet. Als erfolgreich stuften die FES 18 Patienten (32,7%) ein, bei 34 Patienten (65,4%) trat keine Veränderung auf, eine Patientin berichtete über eine Verschlechterung. Der Therapieerfolg hielt 13,2 Monate an. Bei erfolgreich behandelten Patienten sank die Miktionsfrequenz signifikant von 13,3/24 h auf 6,1/24 h unter FES und auf 6,75/24 h zum Zeitpunkt der Befragung. Die FES stellt auch nach Versagen der medikamentösen Therapie eine gut tolerierte konservative Behandlungsoption bei neurogener oder idiopathischer Detrusorüberaktivität dar.

Schlüsselwörter

Neurogene Blasenfunktionsstörung Überaktive Blase Elektrostimulation Detrusorüberaktivität Dranginkontinenz 

Neurogenic or idiopathic destrusor overactivity after failed antimuscarinic treatment

Clinical value of external temporary electrostimulation

Abstract

Antimuscarinic drugs are regarded as the standard treatment of detrusor overactivity (DO). However, side effects and lack of efficacy cause patients to discontinue long-term therapy. We evaluated the clinical efficacy of functional external electrostimulation (FES) as “second-line” therapy in patients with symptomatic idiopathic or neurogenic DO.

In a retrospective study, 52 patients (38 women and 14 men) were evaluated at least 1 year after FES. Eighteen patients (32.7%) regarded FES as successful. No change occurred in 34 patients (65.4%) and 1 patient reported worsening of symptoms. Treatment success lasted for 13.2 months. In successfully treated patients, voiding frequency was significantly reduced from 13.3/24 h to 6.1/24 h under FES and to 6.75/24 h at follow-up. FES is a clinically useful, well-tolerated, conservative second-line treatment option after failed antimuscarinic treatment in patients with idiopathic or neurogenic DO.

Keywords

Neurogenic bladder dysfunction Overactive bladder Electrostimulation Detrusor overactivity Urge incontinence 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Schönberger B (2003) Die überaktive Blase. Welche Diagnostik ist vor Beginn der Primärtherapie notwendig? Urologe A 42:787–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kannan H, Radican L, Turpin RS, Bolge SC (2009) Burden of illness associated with lower urinary tract symptoms including overactive bladder/urinary incontinence. Urology (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Del Popolo G, Panariello G, Del Corso F et al (2008) Diagnosis and therapy for neurogenic bladder dysfunctions in multiple sclerosis patients. Neurol Sci 29(Suppl 4):S352–S355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Novara G, Galfano A, Secco S et al (2008) A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with antimuscarinic drugs for overactive bladder. Eur Urol 54:740–763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basra RK, Wagg A, Chapple C et al (2008) A review of adherence to drug therapy in patients with overactive bladder. BJU Int 102:774–779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burgio KL, Locher JL, Goode PS et al (1998) Behavioral vs. drug treatment for urge urinary incontinence in older women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 280:1995–2000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang AC, Chih SY, Chen MC (2006) Comparison of electric stimulation and oxybutynin chloride in management of overactive bladder with special reference to urinary urgency: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Urology 68:999–1004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suhel P (1976) Adjustable nonimplantable electrical stimulators for correction of urinary incontinence. Urol Int 31:115–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindström S, Fall M, Carlsson CA, Erlandson BE (1983) The neurophysiological basis of bladder inhibition in response to intravaginal electrical stimulation. J Urol 129:405–410PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiss G (2004) Die Rolle der Elektrotherapie bei der Inkontinenz des Mannes. J Urol Urogynaekol 11:35–39Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aristizábal Agudelo JM, Salinas Casado J, Fuertes ME et al (1996) Urodynamic results of the treatment of urinary incontinence with peripheral electric stimulation. Arch Esp Urol 49:836–842Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perrigot M, Pichon B, Peskine A, Vassilev K (2008) Èlectrostimulation et rèèducation pèrinèale de l ‚incontinence urinaire et des troubles mictionnels non neurologiques. Ann Readapt Med Phys 51:479–490PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trontelj JV, Janko M, Godec C et al (1974) Proceedings: Electrical stimulation for urinary incontinence: a neurophysiological study. Urol Int 29:213–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bower WF, Moore KH, Adams RD, Shepherd R (1998) A urodynamic study of surface neuromodulation versus sham in detrusor instability and sensory urgency. J Urol 160:2133–2136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zöllner-Nielsen M, Samuelsson SM (1992) Maximal electrical stimulation of patients with frequency, urgency and urge incontinence. Report of 38 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 71:629–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brubaker L, Benson JT, Bent A et al (1997) Transvaginal electrical stimulation for female urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:536–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amaro JL, Gameiro MO, Kawano PR, Padovani CR (2006) Intravaginal electrical stimulation: a randomized, double-blind study on the treatment of mixed urinary incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:619–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kulseng-Hanssen S, Kristoffersen M, Larsen E (1998) Evaluation of the subjective and objective effect of maximal electrical stimulation in patients complaining of urge incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 168(Suppl):12–15Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caputo RM, Benson JT, McClellan E (1993) Intravaginal maximal electrical stimulation in the treatment of urinary incontinence. J Reprod Med 38:667–671PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yamanishi T, Yasuda K, Sakakibara R et al (2000) Randomized, double-blind study of electrical stimulation for urinary incontinence due to detrusor overactivity. Urology 55:353–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bratt H, Salvesen KA, Eriksen BC, Kulseng-Hanssen S (1998) Long-term effects ten years after maximal electrostimulation of the pelvic floor in women with unstable detrusor and urge incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 168(Suppl):22–24Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Primus G (1992) Maximal electrical stimulation in neurogenic detrusor hyperactivity: experiences in multiple sclerosis. Eur J Med 1:80–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Primus G, Kramer G (1996) Maximal external electrical stimulation for treatment of neurogenic or non-neurogenic urgency and/or urge incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 15:187–194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berghmans LC, Hendriks HJ, De Bie RA et al (2000) Conservative treatment of urge urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. BJU Int 85:254–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brubaker L (2000) Electrical stimulation in overactive bladder. Urology 55(5A Suppl):17–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arruda RM, Castro RA, Sousa GC et al (2008) Prospective randomized comparison of oxybutynin, functional electrostimulation and pelvic floor training for treatment of Detrusor overactivity in women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1055–1061CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bower WF, Moore KH, Adams RD, Shepherd R (1998) A urodynamic study of surface neuromodulation versus sham in detrusor instability and sensory urgency. J Urol 160:2133–2136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burgio KL, Goode PS, Locher JL et al (2002) Behavioral training with and without biofeedback in the treatment of urge incontinence in older women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:2293–2299CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klarskov P, Heely E, Nyholdt I et al (1994) Biofeedback treatment of bladder dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. A randomized trial. Scand J Urol Nephrol 157(Suppl):61–65Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suzuki T, Yasuda K, Yamanishi T et al (2007) Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled evaluation of the effect of functional continuous magnetic stimulation in patients with urgency incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 26:767–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Neuro-Urologie, Schweizer Paraplegiker-ZentrumNottwilSchweiz
  2. 2.Urologische Klinik, UniversitätsklinikMarienhospitalHerneDeutschland

Personalised recommendations