Interferential electrical stimulation for improved bladder management following spinal cord injury

BIOMEDICAL REPORTS, 2019 · DOI: 10.3892/br.2019.1227 · Published: June 21, 2019

Simple Explanation

This study investigates using a non-invasive electrical stimulation (IMFC ES) to help patients with spinal cord injuries and neurogenic bladder dysfunction. The treatment involves applying a medium frequency current that creates a low frequency field within the body to stimulate urinary structures. The study found that IMFC ES was effective in decreasing post-void residual urine and urine loss in patients with AIS levels B and C, but not in those with AIS level A.

Study Duration

30 days

Participants

332 patients with neurogenic bladder due to spinal cord injury

Evidence Level

Not specified

Key Findings

1
IMFC ES was effective in patients with AIS levels B and C, significantly decreasing PVR and LOSS compared with patients receiving standard care
2
No significant improvements in urinary management were observed following IMFC ES treatment of patients with AIS level A.
3
Patients with SCI and NB classed as AIS levels B and C that exhibit preserved sensitivity were the best beneficiaries of IMFC ES therapy.

Research Summary

The study evaluated the effectiveness of interferential medium frequency current electrical stimulation (IMFC ES) on 332 patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) and neurogenic bladder (NB). IMFC ES was found to be effective in reducing post-void residual urine and urine loss in patients with AIS levels B and C, but not in patients with AIS level A. The results suggest that IMFC ES may be a safe and effective non-invasive treatment option for improving urinary management in select patients with SCI and NB.

Practical Implications

Clinical Practice

IMFC ES can be considered as a treatment option for patients with SCI and NB, particularly those with AIS levels B and C.

Future Research

Further studies with urodynamic evaluation and larger patient numbers are needed to validate these findings.

Patient Selection

Patients with preserved skin sensitivity are more likely to benefit from IMFC ES therapy.

Study Limitations

1
No urodynamic evaluation was performed
2
The design of the current study did not allow discriminating between contributions of the spontaneous recovery from the spinal shock and those attributed to IMFC ES.
3
The fact that no urodynamic evaluation was performed is a limitation of the current study

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Spinal Cord Injury