Bölükbaş N, Vural M, Karan A, Yalçin O, Eskiyurt N
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Istanbul University, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.
Eura Medicophys. 2005 Dec;41(4):297-301.
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).
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.
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).
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.
尿失禁是女性最常见的医疗问题之一。我们在此提议评估和比较两种保守治疗方式，即功能性电刺激（FES）和功能性磁刺激（FMS）的效果。
我们研究了22名女性尿失禁患者，并将她们分为2个治疗组（FES组14例，FMS组8例）。FES组患者的平均年龄为51.14±11.9岁，FMS组为42.25±6.9岁。在急迫性和压力性尿失禁中，分别以10Hz和30 - 50Hz连续施加功能性电刺激。在混合性尿失禁中，以10Hz刺激15分钟，以50Hz刺激15分钟。治疗疗程为20分钟，每周3次，共6 - 8周（混合性尿失禁12例，压力性尿失禁2例）。FMS通过磁椅进行，每周两次，共6周（混合性尿失禁6例，压力性尿失禁1例，急迫性尿失禁1例）。治疗效果根据患者的主观感受、尿日记记录、1小时尿垫试验结果、会阴测量值和指诊评分来判断。
与刺激前水平相比，两组在刺激过程中会阴测量值、指诊评分均显著增加（P<0.05）。两组的尿垫试验也有显著改善（P<0.05）。FES组的尿日记和排尿频率在治愈或改善方面明显更多（P<0.05）。然而，两组夜间排尿频率的降低均不显著（P>0.05）。
FES和FMS治疗均有效。FMS不涉及阴道内刺激，且每周两次。虽然FMS不常使用，但它比FES更具成本效益。为了准确了解这个问题，需要在更多受试者中进行比已开展的研究更多的研究。
