Cargando…

A Urodynamic Comparison of Neural Targets for Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation to Acutely Suppress Detrusor Contractions Following Spinal Cord Injury

OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effect of transcutaneous Dorsal Genital Nerve Stimulation (DGNS), Tibial Nerve Stimulation (TNS), Sacral Nerve Stimulation (SNS), and Spinal Stimulation (SS) on Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity (NDO) and bladder capacity in people with Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Doherty, Sean, Vanhoestenberghe, Anne, Duffell, Lynsey, Hamid, Rizwan, Knight, Sarah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951414/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31956301
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01360
_version_ 1783486269915922432
author Doherty, Sean
Vanhoestenberghe, Anne
Duffell, Lynsey
Hamid, Rizwan
Knight, Sarah
author_facet Doherty, Sean
Vanhoestenberghe, Anne
Duffell, Lynsey
Hamid, Rizwan
Knight, Sarah
author_sort Doherty, Sean
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effect of transcutaneous Dorsal Genital Nerve Stimulation (DGNS), Tibial Nerve Stimulation (TNS), Sacral Nerve Stimulation (SNS), and Spinal Stimulation (SS) on Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity (NDO) and bladder capacity in people with Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven male participants with supra-sacral SCI were tested. Standard cystometry (CMG) was performed to assess bladder activity at baseline and with stimulation applied at each site. This was conducted over four separate sessions. All stimulation was monophasic, 15 Hz, 200 μS pulses and applied at maximum tolerable amplitude. Results were analysed against individual control results from within the same session. RESULTS: Dorsal Genital Nerve Stimulation increased bladder capacity by 153 ± 146 ml (p = 0.016) or 117 ± 201%. DGNS, TNS and SNS all increased the volume held following the first reflex contraction, by 161 ± 175, 46 ± 62, and 34 ± 33 ml (p = 0.016, p = 0.031, p = 0.016), respectively. SS results showed small reduction of 33 ± 26 ml (p = 0.063) from baseline bladder capacity in five participants. Maximum Detrusor Pressure before leakage was increased during TNS, by 10 ± 13 cmH(2)O (p = 0.031) but was unchanged during stimulation of other sites. DGNS only was able to suppress at least one detrusor contraction in five participants and reduced first peak detrusor pressure below 40 cmH(2)O in these 5. Continuous TNS, SNS, and SS produced non-significant changes in bladder capacity from baseline, comparable to conditional stimulation. Increase in bladder capacity correlated with stimulation amplitude for DGNS but not TNS, SNS or SS. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study DGNS acutely suppressed detrusor contractions and increased bladder capacity whereas TNS, SNS, and SS did not. This is the first within individual comparison of surface stimulation sites for management of NDO in SCI individuals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6951414
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69514142020-01-17 A Urodynamic Comparison of Neural Targets for Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation to Acutely Suppress Detrusor Contractions Following Spinal Cord Injury Doherty, Sean Vanhoestenberghe, Anne Duffell, Lynsey Hamid, Rizwan Knight, Sarah Front Neurosci Neuroscience OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effect of transcutaneous Dorsal Genital Nerve Stimulation (DGNS), Tibial Nerve Stimulation (TNS), Sacral Nerve Stimulation (SNS), and Spinal Stimulation (SS) on Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity (NDO) and bladder capacity in people with Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven male participants with supra-sacral SCI were tested. Standard cystometry (CMG) was performed to assess bladder activity at baseline and with stimulation applied at each site. This was conducted over four separate sessions. All stimulation was monophasic, 15 Hz, 200 μS pulses and applied at maximum tolerable amplitude. Results were analysed against individual control results from within the same session. RESULTS: Dorsal Genital Nerve Stimulation increased bladder capacity by 153 ± 146 ml (p = 0.016) or 117 ± 201%. DGNS, TNS and SNS all increased the volume held following the first reflex contraction, by 161 ± 175, 46 ± 62, and 34 ± 33 ml (p = 0.016, p = 0.031, p = 0.016), respectively. SS results showed small reduction of 33 ± 26 ml (p = 0.063) from baseline bladder capacity in five participants. Maximum Detrusor Pressure before leakage was increased during TNS, by 10 ± 13 cmH(2)O (p = 0.031) but was unchanged during stimulation of other sites. DGNS only was able to suppress at least one detrusor contraction in five participants and reduced first peak detrusor pressure below 40 cmH(2)O in these 5. Continuous TNS, SNS, and SS produced non-significant changes in bladder capacity from baseline, comparable to conditional stimulation. Increase in bladder capacity correlated with stimulation amplitude for DGNS but not TNS, SNS or SS. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study DGNS acutely suppressed detrusor contractions and increased bladder capacity whereas TNS, SNS, and SS did not. This is the first within individual comparison of surface stimulation sites for management of NDO in SCI individuals. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6951414/ /pubmed/31956301 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01360 Text en Copyright © 2019 Doherty, Vanhoestenberghe, Duffell, Hamid and Knight. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Doherty, Sean
Vanhoestenberghe, Anne
Duffell, Lynsey
Hamid, Rizwan
Knight, Sarah
A Urodynamic Comparison of Neural Targets for Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation to Acutely Suppress Detrusor Contractions Following Spinal Cord Injury
title A Urodynamic Comparison of Neural Targets for Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation to Acutely Suppress Detrusor Contractions Following Spinal Cord Injury
title_full A Urodynamic Comparison of Neural Targets for Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation to Acutely Suppress Detrusor Contractions Following Spinal Cord Injury
title_fullStr A Urodynamic Comparison of Neural Targets for Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation to Acutely Suppress Detrusor Contractions Following Spinal Cord Injury
title_full_unstemmed A Urodynamic Comparison of Neural Targets for Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation to Acutely Suppress Detrusor Contractions Following Spinal Cord Injury
title_short A Urodynamic Comparison of Neural Targets for Transcutaneous Electrical Stimulation to Acutely Suppress Detrusor Contractions Following Spinal Cord Injury
title_sort urodynamic comparison of neural targets for transcutaneous electrical stimulation to acutely suppress detrusor contractions following spinal cord injury
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951414/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31956301
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01360
work_keys_str_mv AT dohertysean aurodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT vanhoestenbergheanne aurodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT duffelllynsey aurodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT hamidrizwan aurodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT knightsarah aurodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT dohertysean urodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT vanhoestenbergheanne urodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT duffelllynsey urodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT hamidrizwan urodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury
AT knightsarah urodynamiccomparisonofneuraltargetsfortranscutaneouselectricalstimulationtoacutelysuppressdetrusorcontractionsfollowingspinalcordinjury