Published in

MDPI, Healthcare, 12(11), p. 1730, 2023

DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11121730

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Flat Magnetic Stimulation for Stress Urinary Incontinence: A 3-Month Follow-Up Study

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background: flat magnetic stimulation is based on a stimulation produced by electromagnetic fields with a homogenous profile. Patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can take advantage of this treatment. We aimed to evaluate medium-term subjective, objective, and quality-of-life outcomes in patients with stress urinary incontinence to evaluate possible maintenance schedules. Methods: a prospective evaluation through the administration of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF), the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ7), and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) was performed at three different time points: at the baseline (T0), at the end of treatment (T1), and at 3-month follow-up (T2). The stress test and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire (PGI-I) defined objective and subjective outcomes, respectively. Results: 25 consecutive patients were enrolled. A statistically significant reduction in the IIQ7 and ICIQ-SF scores was noticed at T1 returned to levels comparable to the baseline at T2. However, objective improvement remained significant even at a 3-month follow-up. Moreover, the PGI-I scores at T1 and T2 were comparable, demonstrating stable subjective satisfaction. Conclusion: despite a certain persistence of the objective and subjective continence improvement, the urinary-related quality of life decreases and returns to baseline values three months after the end of flat magnetic stimulation. These findings indicate that a further cycle of treatment is probably indicated after 3 months since benefits are only partially maintained after this timespan.