• Ding-Yuan Yang, Liu-Ni Zhao, and Ming-Xing Qiu.
• Department of Urology, Chengdu Second People's Hospital.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 May 21; 100 (20): e25941e25941.

BackgroundWe aim to compare the safety and effectiveness of transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) versus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) in treating overactive bladder.MethodsA systematical search on PubMed, Embase, clinicalTrial.gov, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1999 to November 1, 2020 was performed. The primary outcomes were the changes in a 3-day voiding diary. Quality of life scores were also evaluated. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was applied to conduct all statistical analyses.ResultsA total of 4 trials (2 randomized controlled trials, 1 retrospective study, and 1 before-after study) with 142 patients were eventually enrolled. Compared with PTNS, TTNS had a similar performance in the voiding frequency in 24 hours (mean difference [MD] = -0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.35 to 0.05, P = .07), the number of urgency episodes in 24 hours (MD = 0.13, 95% CI: -0.36 to 0.62, P = .60), the number of incontinence episodes in 24 hours (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.14, P = .93), as well as in the nocturia frequency (MD = -0.14, 95% CI: -0.52 to 0.24, P = .47). Moreover, comparable results were observed regarding HRQL scores (P = .23) and incontinence quality of life scores (P = .10) in both groups. The total complication rate in the current study was 2.1% (3/142). No adverse events were identified in the TTNS group.ConclusionCurrent data supported that TTNS is as effective as PTNS for the treatment of overactive bladder, moreover, with no reported adverse events. However, the evidence is low-grade and well-designed prospective studies with a large sample size are warranted to verify our findings.Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

27 keywords...

hide…