Efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation in the treatment of neurogenic bladder dysfunction in myelomeningocele—Systematic review of randomized clinical trials

• Published in: Neurourology and urodynamics Vol. 41; no. 1; pp. 91 - 101
• Main Authors: Silva, Tamiris, T. Horliana, Anna C. R., Malavazzi, Tainá C. S., Santos, Elaine M., Gonçalves, Marcela L. L., Fernandes, Kristianne P. S., Mesquita‐Ferrari, Raquel A., Martimbianco, Ana Luiza C., Bussadori, Sandra K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.01.2022
• Subjects: Bladder; Child; Children; Clinical trials; Electric Stimulation; electrical stimulation; Electrical stimuli; Humans; Meningomyelocele - complications; Meta-analysis; myelomeningocele; neurogenic bladder dysfunction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reviews; Safety; spina bifida; Systematic review; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic - etiology; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic - therapy; Urinary incontinence; Urinary tract; electrical stimulation; myelomeningocele; neurogenic bladder dysfunction; urinary incontinence; spina bifida
• ISSN: 0733-2467; 1520-6777
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.24792

Aims The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate and synthesize the effects (benefits and harms) of electrical stimulation (EE), alone or in association with other interventions, compared with sham and other interventions, for the treatment of neurogenic bladder dysfunction in myelomeningocele. Methods This systematic review was conducted following the methodological recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020200425). A search was performed in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, LILACS, and PEDro. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed any EE in children diagnosed with myelomeningocele and neurogenic bladder and/or urinary incontinence were included and reported. Results When comparing EE versus sham groups, some estimated effects showed a wide confidence interval, probably due to the small sample size of the included studies. This indicates an imprecision in these findings. Regarding the safety of this intervention and safety of the lower urinary tract, no adverse events resulting from EE were reported. All the included studies have evaluated the efficacy of EE compared with sham, but different EE parameters and electrode positions among studies make it impossible to perform a meta‐analysis. Conclusions Based on very low certainty evidence, the findings of this systematic review suggested no difference between EE and sham to improve urinary incontinence in children with myelomeningocele. However, the small sample size and the imprecision arising from the wide confidence intervals must be considered. Future RCTs following a rigorous methodology, as recommended by the CONSORT statement, should be conducted to support the use of this intervention in clinical practice.