Comparison of the efficacy and safety of sacral root magnetic stimulation with transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in the treatment of neurogenic detrusor overactivity: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Both repetitive sacral root magnetic stimulation (rSMS) and transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) have demonstrated clinical benefits for lower urinary tract dysfunction. However it still remains unclear that which method is more effective and safer to treat neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). METHODS: From December 2020 to December 2021, 50 patients (31 men and 19 women, aged 47.9±12.4 years) with NDO secondary to suprasacral spinal cord injury (SCI) were enrolled and randomly allocated to the rSMS or TTNS group based on a computer-generated random numbers table. The stimulation was applied continuously 5 times per week for 20 sessions. Urodynamic test was conducted at baseline and the day after the final 20th treatment session. The primary outcome was the individual change (Δ) in maximum cystometric capacity (MCC) from baseline to post-treatment. Secondary outcomes included changes (Δ) for the following parameters: volume at 1st involuntary detrusor contraction (1st IDCV), maximal detrusor pressure (Pdetmax), bladder compliance (BC), postvoid residual (PVR) volume, and bladder voiding efficiency (BVE). Additionally, adverse reactions including pain and skin irritation during stimulation were observed and recorded as safety outcomes. RESULTS: Finally 47 patients completed the study (23 in rSMS and 24 in TTNS group). A per-protocol (PP) analysis was performed, and Mann-Whitney U test and unpaired t-test were used for statistical analysis. Compared with the efficacy of TTNS, rSMS showed statistically greater ΔMCC [median +43 mL (IQR, 22–62 mL) vs. +20 mL (IQR, 15–25 mL), P=0.001, with a between-group difference of +22 mL (95% CI: +7 to +35 mL)] and ΔBVE [median +10.0% (IQR, 3.8–15.7%) vs. +3.5% (IQR, 0.0–7.8%), P=0.003, with a between-group difference of +5.9% (95% CI: +1.2% to +9.7%)]. No significant differences were found in Δ1st IDCV (P=0.40), ΔPdetmax (P=0.67), ΔBC (P=0.79) and ΔPVR (P=0.92) between the two groups. Meanwhile, patients exhibited high tolerance to both protocols, and no adverse reactions were observed. CONCLUSIONS: RSMS may be more effective to improve urodynamics in the treatment for NDO than TTNS, cause it led to a statistical improvement in bladder capacity and voiding efficiency, without any side effects. RSMS is thus worthy of further clinical promotion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100050663.