Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Prasad, R S
Right arrow Articles by Wright, H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Prasad, R S
Right arrow Articles by Wright, H
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Lower abdominal pressure versus external bladder stimulation to aid bladder emptying in multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled study

R S Prasad

S J Smith

H Wright

Neurorehabilitation Unit, Astley Ainslie Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland

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 100–500 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 1–37 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.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 17, No. 1, 42-47 (2003)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215503cr583oa


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. PsychiatryHome page
C J Fowler, J N Panicker, M Drake, C Harris, S C W Harrison, M Kirby, M Lucas, N Macleod, J Mangnall, A North, et al.
A UK consensus on the management of the bladder in multiple sclerosis
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, May 1, 2009; 80(5): 470 - 477.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
P Davies, R Greenwood, and J Benger
Randomised trial of a vibrating bladder stimulator - the time to pee study
Arch. Dis. Child., May 1, 2008; 93(5): 423 - 424.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Advertisement