سوال
لطفا دو تا مقاله را برای پایانامه لازم داشتم بسیار سپاسگزارم Continuing posterior tibial nerve stimulation after twelve weekly sessions: a randomized controlled trial. • Source: Urogynaecologia . 2022, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p1-6. 6p. • Author(s): Zigman, Jessica S.; Handler, Stephanie J.; Amaya, Stephanie; Zeno, Aldene O.; Yoko Takashima; Navas, John J.; Yazdany, Tajnoos • Abstract: Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation (PTNS) is a treatment option for refractory Overactive Bladder (OAB). There is currently no evidence to support which maintenance schedule is most effective. The objective of this study is to compare patient-reported outcomes between monthly maintenance therapy and sessions scheduled Per patient request (PRN). We hypothesized that there is no difference in these measures between groups. After completing 12 sessions of PTNS, patients were randomized to monthly or PRN maintenance. Quality of life, patient satisfaction, and degree of symptom bother were assessed with validated questionnaires. Thirty six patients were randomized: 19 to monthly follow-up, and 17 to PRN follow-up. The PRN group demonstrated a significantly higher quality of life (p=0.04) with a large effect size (0.82). Over a three-month period, there was no significant difference in the average number of visits between the monthly and PRN groups, with an average of 1.79 (±1.18) and 1.24 (±1.35) visits, respectively (p=0.20). After six months of maintenance therapy, 42% of patients in the monthly group and 53% of patients in PRN group elected to continue therapy (p=0.27). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to treatment satisfaction (p=0.62) or percent change in OAB symptoms (p=0.13). There is no difference between monthly and PRN follow-up in terms of patient satisfaction and symptom bother. However, the PRN group scored higher on the quality of life measure. PRN maintenance may optimize care for patients treating Overactive Bladder Syndrome with posterior tibial nerve stimulation. • Copyright of Urogynaecologia is the property of PAGEPress and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. Handler SJ, Yang S-JT, Nguyen JN. Urgent PC Versus a Generic Posterior Tibial Neurostimulator for Overactive Bladder: A Retrospective Noninferiority Study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28(3):136–41. Urgent PC Versus a Generic Posterior Tibial Neurostimulator for Overactive Bladder: A Retrospective Noninferiority Study Handler, Stephanie Jillian MD∗; Yang, Su-Jau T. PhD†; Nguyen, John N. MD∗ Author Information Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 28(3):p 136-141, March 2022. | DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001168 AbstractIn Brief ________________________________________ Objective The aim of the study was to determine whether a generic posterior tibial neurostimulator was noninferior to Urgent PC in the treatment of nonneurogenic OAB, urgency urinary incontinence, and mixed urinary incontinence. Secondary outcomes include rates of starting and completing 3 months of maintenance therapy, treatment success after 3 months, and adverse events. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of women whose nonneurogenic OAB, urgency urinary incontinence, or mixed urinary incontinence was treated with either Urgent PC or a generic posterior tibial neurostimulator. Previous research shows a 55% treatment success rate for posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). To demonstrate noninferiority with a limit of 14% and 80% power, our analysis required 157 patients per group. Results We included 267 Urgent PC and 234 generic patients and excluded 51 patients from analysis. A per-protocol analysis demonstrated treatment success in 55.3% (121 of 219) of the Urgent PC and 48.6% (85 of 175) of the generic cohort (P = 0.187). An intention-to-treat analysis showed treatment success in 45.3% (121 of 267) of the Urgent PC and 36.3% (85 of 234) of the generic cohort (P = 0.690). There were no significant differences in rates of starting (82.2% vs 78.2%, P = 0.409) or completing (79.9% vs 70.9%, P = 0.129) 3 months of maintenance therapy, treatment success after 3 months (78.5% vs 73.8%, P = 0.485), and adverse events (0.37% vs 0.85%, P = 1.000) in the Urgent PC versus generic group, respectively. Conclusions In this cohort of women undergoing PTNS for nonneurogenic OAB, urgency urinary incontinence, or mixed urinary incontinence, the generic neurostimulator demonstrated noninferior rates of treatment success compared with Urgent PC.
پاسخ
سلام مقالات درخواستی به ایمیل ارسال گردید