{"title":"Efficacy in Using Urodynamic Parameters of Intravesical Electrical Stimulation for Detrusor Underactivity.","authors":"Rahmat Aidil Fajar Siregar, Hendy Mirza, Widyawan Hami Seno, Nugroho Purnomo, Moammar Andar Roemare Siregar, Andika Afriansyah","doi":"10.5152/tud.2024.23235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Intravesical electrical stimulation (IVES) remains a controversial therapy for detrusor underactivity (DUA). The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of IVES in patients with DUA using pre- and post-IVES urodynamic parameters.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Intravesical electrical stimulation procedure is performed using a specific catheter equipped with an internal electrical electrode (cathode). The anode is subsequently affixed to the lower abdomen (suprapubic). Afterward, this specialized catheter is connected to a stimulator. Patients undergo a series of 12 IVES procedures in 1 month with the following predetermined parameters: 20 mA amplitude, 20 Hz frequency, 200 µs pulse width, and 60 minutes stimulation time. Patients underwent a follow-up urodynamic examination 1 month after the IVES series is completed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After IVES, several notable changes were observed, including an increase in Qmax from 7.28 ± 5.24 to 7.29 ± 4.09 (P=.030), a decrease in post-void residual (PVR) from 73.03 ± 43.91 to 62.07 ± 39.10 (P=.005), and an increase in PDet@tQmax from 17.10 ± 12.35 to 18.87 ± 12.47 (P=.009). The aetiologies of DUA were categorized into 3 groups: chronic obstruction (CO), idiopathic (Idio), and neurological disorder (ND). The CO group exhibited significant changes in urodynamic parameters, specifically Qmax (P=.001), PVR (P=.001), and PDet@Qmax (P=.035). Similarly, the idiopathic group also demonstrated improvements in Qmax (P=.008), PVR (P=.037), and PDet@ Qmax (P=.033).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Intravesical electrical stimulation has been shown to have a positive effect on patients diagnosed with DUA, particularly those whose DUA is idiopathic or due to chronic obstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11232061/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2024.23235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Intravesical electrical stimulation (IVES) remains a controversial therapy for detrusor underactivity (DUA). The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of IVES in patients with DUA using pre- and post-IVES urodynamic parameters.
Methods: Intravesical electrical stimulation procedure is performed using a specific catheter equipped with an internal electrical electrode (cathode). The anode is subsequently affixed to the lower abdomen (suprapubic). Afterward, this specialized catheter is connected to a stimulator. Patients undergo a series of 12 IVES procedures in 1 month with the following predetermined parameters: 20 mA amplitude, 20 Hz frequency, 200 µs pulse width, and 60 minutes stimulation time. Patients underwent a follow-up urodynamic examination 1 month after the IVES series is completed.
Results: After IVES, several notable changes were observed, including an increase in Qmax from 7.28 ± 5.24 to 7.29 ± 4.09 (P=.030), a decrease in post-void residual (PVR) from 73.03 ± 43.91 to 62.07 ± 39.10 (P=.005), and an increase in PDet@tQmax from 17.10 ± 12.35 to 18.87 ± 12.47 (P=.009). The aetiologies of DUA were categorized into 3 groups: chronic obstruction (CO), idiopathic (Idio), and neurological disorder (ND). The CO group exhibited significant changes in urodynamic parameters, specifically Qmax (P=.001), PVR (P=.001), and PDet@Qmax (P=.035). Similarly, the idiopathic group also demonstrated improvements in Qmax (P=.008), PVR (P=.037), and PDet@ Qmax (P=.033).
Conclusion: Intravesical electrical stimulation has been shown to have a positive effect on patients diagnosed with DUA, particularly those whose DUA is idiopathic or due to chronic obstruction.