ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives: Magnetic stimulation is a type of conservative treatment of urinary incontinence. Our aim was to evaluate the possible side effects of this method. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review. The key search terms were urinary incontinence, magnetic stimulation, and female. All known synonyms were used. Results: 255 titles and abstracts were retrieved, and 28 articles met our inclusion criteria. Out of 28 studies, 15 reported no side effects, five reported side effects, and eight did not report anything. There was no significant difference in the incidence of side effects between the sham and active treatment groups. Conclusions: Side effects of magnetic stimulation in comparison to other active treatments are minimal and transient. Among the conservative UI treatment methods, magnetic stimulation is one of the safest methods for the patient and as such a suitable first step in treating UI.
Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Electric Stimulation Therapy , Urinary Incontinence, Stress , Urinary Incontinence , Female , Humans , Electric Stimulation Therapy/methods , Urinary Incontinence/therapy , Exercise Therapy/methods , Magnetic PhenomenaABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This systematic review analyzes published studies about magnetic stimulation (MS) treatment for UUI and determines whether this treatment is effective and non-invasive. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. The international standard for reporting results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) was used to guide the methodology of this systematic review. The key search terms were as follows: "magnetic stimulation" and "urinary incontinence." We limited the time frame to articles published from 1998, when the FDA approved MS as a conservative treatment option for UI. The last search was performed on 5 August 2022. RESULTS: Two authors independently reviewed 234 article titles and abstracts, of which only 5 fitted the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies included women with UUI, but every study had different diagnostic and entry criteria for patients. They also differed in their treatment regimens and methodological approaches to assessing the efficacy of treating UUI with MS, which made it impossible to compare the results. Nonetheless, all five studies established that MS is an effective and non-invasive way of treating UUI. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic literature review led to the conclusion that MS is an effective and conservative way of treating UUI. Despite this, literature in this area is lacking. Further randomized controlled trials are needed, with standardized entry criteria, UUI diagnostics, MS programs, and standardized protocols to measure the efficacy of MS in UUI treatment, with a longer follow-up period for post-treatment patients.
