Transcutaneous Posterior Nerve Stimulation inTreatment of Fecal Incontience

NCT04478799 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 102

Last updated 2020-07-22

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Shafik and colleagues were the first to report the use of posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) for FI, and they documented improved continence after 4 weeks course. Subsequent studies documented percutaneous and transcutaneous PTNS as effective methods for treatment of FI, with a short term reduction in incontinence episode by 50-80 %. Percutaneous PTNS (PPTNS) showed a greater effect than transcutaneous PTNS (TPTNS) and this may be assumed due to the presence of the stimulating electrode very close to the posterior tibial nerve. However, TPTNS is more preferable to percutaneous PTNS because of the concern about the insertion of a needle may result in stimulation that is sufficient to produce a neuromodulatory effect.

Conditions

  • Fecal Incontinence

Interventions

DEVICE

Transcutanous Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation

children were managed by bilateral TPTNS following the procedure described in 2006 by Queralto et al(11). A positive auto-adhesive electrode was applied 1.5 inch above the medial malleolus over the S3 dermatome. A second negative electrode was applied just below the same malleolus. Electrical stimulation device (EMS physio Ltd, OX129 F, England) was connected to both electrodes. This device delivers a low frequency current (10 Hz), and the intensity was gradually increased till flexion of the big toe or spread out of the other toes in a fan shape occurred. Then the intensity was lowered to (10 Hz) again to avoid the motor response of the toes. Intensity was determined by the child's sensitivity. The procedure was done for 20-30 minutes and repeated2 times per week for 3 months

DEVICE

Sham Transcutanous Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation

Sham transcutaneous stimulation Patients also had twice-weekly 20-30-min sessions for 3 months. The same self-adhesive electrodes as used for group A were employed, placed in a similar position. The stimulator was briefly switched on for 30 s to induce only a minor electrical sensation in the skin, and was then turned off for the rest of the treatment. This short duration was given for only for a few seconds to avoid lower limb stimulation. Patients in all TWO groups were told that they may or may not have any perception of the electrical stimulation. Without prior knowledge of what to expect from treatment, this enabled the sham group to act as a control. In order to improve on the blinding effect of the study, the electronic display window of the stimulators was shielded from the patients in the TWO groups. All patients underwent therapy in individual screened cubicles to prevent comparison between patients of the treatment being administered.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Benha University

    collaborator OTHER
  • Batterjee Medical College

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

  • Mohamed S Kharoub, MD · faculty of medicine, Benha university

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
6 Years
Max Age
14 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2017-09-01
Primary Completion
2020-05-01
Completion
2020-07-15

Countries

  • Egypt

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT04478799 on ClinicalTrials.gov