Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Lower abdominal pressure versus external bladder stimulation to aid bladder emptying in multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled study [with consumer summary]
Prasad RS, Smith SJ, Wright H
Clinical Rehabilitation 2003 Feb;17(1):42-47
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the change in post-void residual bladder volumes (PVR) with 'abdominal vibration' using a percutaneous bladder stimulator in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients compared with either 'no treatment' or 'abdominal pressure'. DESIGN: Randomized controlled cross-over study. SETTING: Regional neurorehabilitation clinics. SUBJECTS: Twenty-eight MS patients with urinary symptoms and PVR > 100 ml. Twelve patients had urinary incontinence. METHODS: MS patients with voiding dysfunction and elevated PVR of 100 to 500 ml on BVI-3000 Ultrasound Scanner were randomized to either 'abdominal pressure' or 'vibration' by a portable, percutaneous, vibrating device (Queen Square Bladder Stimulator; Malem Medical) or to 'no treatment'. PVR was assessed at the end of each two-week phase. Outcome measure: PVR reduction by greater than 100 ml. RESULTS: The 28 patients ranged in age from 29 to 71 years with a mean age of 49 years and a mean duration of MS of 12 years (range 1 to 37 years). The PVR decreased from 231 (SD 119) ml during no treatment to 191 (SD 132) ml with abdominal pressure (p = 0.242). Using suprapubic vibration the PVR reduced further to 126 (SD 121) ml, which was highly significant (p = 0.002) compared with no treatment. The difference between abdominal pressure and vibration just failed to reach significance (p = 0.059). There was no significant reduction in either the frequency of micturition or episodes of incontinence. The device was well-tolerated by patients. CONCLUSION: Abdominal vibration is an effective method of reducing PVR in MS patients and appears more effective than abdominal pressure alone.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help