Investigation of the effectiveness of magnetic field therapy in women with urinary incontinence: Literature review.

OBJECTIVE: Magnetic stimulation (MS) provides a novel strategy for the treatment of urinary incontinence (UI), although its efficacy remains uncertain. This systematic review both evaluated the effects of MS treatment on UI and investigated its impacts on female patients' life quality. METHODS: A review of the literature that was conducted in EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library (2016-2021) with the search terms; Incontinence of stress OR urge of urination OR Urinary incontinence mixed type. The search was carried out for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English. A manual search has also been conducted for the reference lists of the studies found. Seven studies, with a total of 523 patients (475 patients with SUI), 12 urge urinary incontinence. The study included patients with (UUI) and 36 patients with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). A total of 10 male patients were excluded from the study. In the included studies, The International Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form was used to investigate the effects of MS therapy on UI symptoms (ICIQ-SF). RESULTS: According to the literature review, MS is an effective therapy option for female patients with UI. Still, to establish the efficacy of MS in this area, more large-scale, high-quality RCTs with extended follow-up periods that use consistent stimulation modalities and evaluate comparable outcomes are needed. CONCLUSION: MS treatment leads to an improvement in the symptoms of UI, in addition to an associated Improved quality of life for patients, without any reported side effects, while the longer-term treatment outcomes must be determined by long-term trials.

Comparison of ultrasound and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in lateral epicondylosis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and therapeutic ultrasound (US) in the treatment of lateral epicondylosis (LE). METHODS: Our study enrolled 50 patients with LE. Patients were randomized into two groups. Group 1 underwent therapeutic US (n = 24; 5 males and 15 females; mean age: 43.75 ± 4.52) Group 2 underwent ESWT (n = 20; 8 males and 16 females; mean age: 46.04 ± 9.24). Patients were evaluated at baseline, after treatment,and 1 month following treatment. The outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), algometer, grip dynamometer, quick-disability of the arm,shoulder,and hand (QDASH), patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey questionnairre. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements in terms of VAS (all p values < 0.0001), dynamometer (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.015), algometer (all p values < 0.0001), PRTEE (all p values < 0.0001), QDASH (all p values < 0.0001), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.005) within time. There was no significant difference between the two groups, except algometer scores in favor of ESWT (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: ESWT and therapeutic US are equally effective in treating LE. ESWT is an alternative therapeutic intervention and as effective as US. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic study.