Skip to main content
. 2015 Apr 16;2(2):92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2015.04.013

Table 2.

Literature reviewing the acute urodynamic effects of TENS.

First author year Diagnosis n Site Stimulus pulse parameters
Study details Urodynamic outcome
Frequency Pulse width Intensity
Hasan et al., 1996 [12] IDI 36 PTN suprapubic 50 Hz 200 μs Tickling sensation Part of the large study No significant difference in any of the parameters
59 S2–S3 T12 (sham) control 50 Hz 200 μs Tickling sensation 3 groups, sham, control MCC significantly increased in S2–S3 stimulation in compare to sham and control
Bower et al., 1998 [23] DI, SU 79 Sacral 10 Hz 200 μs Max. tolerable sensation 3 groups, sham increased Max. DP and FDV
Suprapubic 150 Hz 200 μs increased Max. DP and FDV
Sham No stimulation increased MCC in SU pts.
Walsh et al., 2001 [29] IDI, SU, DH (SCI, MS) 146 Perianal dermatomes 10 Hz 200 μs Control group FDV (p = 0.002) and MCC (p = 0.0009) improved in compare to control
Amarenco et al., 2003 [37] MS, SCI, PD, IDI 44 PTN 10 Hz 200 μs Below motor response Acute effect 48% (21/44) increased volume at FIDC, 34% (15/44) increased MCC
Fjorback et al., 2007 [30] MS 12 Sacral 20 Hz 500 μs 50–60 mA Conditional stimulation 0/12 were able to supressed detrusor contraction
DPN 20 Hz 500 μs 50–60 mA 10/12 were able to supressed detrusor contraction

DH, detrusor hyperreflexia; DI, detrusor instability; DPN, dorsal penile/clitoral nerve; FDV, first desire to void; FIDC, first involuntary detrusor contraction; IDI, idiopathic detrusor instability; MCC, maximum of cystometry capacity; MS, multiple sclerosis; PD, Parkinson's diseases; PTN, posterior tibial nerve; SCI, spinal cord injury; SU, sensory urgency.