Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) includes urgency, frequency, urgency urinary incontinence, voiding symptoms, and nonobstructive urinary retention, with many patients remaining symptomatic after behavioral and pharmacologic therapy. Neuromodulation has a distinct role because it targets aberrant reflex activity and sensory signaling in pelvic afferent pathways and spinal–supraspinal circuits rather than directly altering detrusor contractility or outlet resistance.</p> Methods <p>This narrative review synthesizes PubMed/MEDLINE literature, major urological guidelines, and evidence syntheses up to May 2026. Evidence was prioritized by methodological robustness and qualitatively synthesized by modality, LUTD phenotype, durability, treatment burden, safety, and clinical relevance.</p> Results <p>Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is the most established implant-based approach, with reported 5-year success of approximately 67–82% in non-neurogenic overactive bladder (OAB), although long-term benefit depends on testing, revision risk, and repeated programming. Smaller and rechargeable pulse generators, MRI-conditional systems, and multi-contact leads are reducing historical barriers and enabling more flexible programming; randomized evidence suggests electrode design can improve short-term response. Tibial nerve stimulation has expanded across clinic-based and home-based workflows. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation improves OAB symptoms in sham-controlled trials but requires ongoing visits and maintenance dosing. Transcutaneous approaches reduce procedural burden, although protocol heterogeneity limits comparisons. Implantable tibial neuromodulation provides scheduled home stimulation and shows durable 2-year responder rates in pivotal studies, but comparisons with SNM remain largely indirect. Safety data generally show minor, reversible adverse events.</p> Conclusion <p>Neuromodulation is an important LUTD treatment, but better patient selection, neurogenic risk stratification, standardized outcomes, comparative studies, and physiology-guided programming remain priorities.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Neuromodulation for Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Mechanisms, Modalities, and Patient Selection

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月5日

查看全文
  • Yukun Wang,
  • Jinlin Shan,
  • Engeng Chen,
  • Kai Xu,
  • Wei Zhou,
  • Lina Shan

摘要

Purpose

Lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) includes urgency, frequency, urgency urinary incontinence, voiding symptoms, and nonobstructive urinary retention, with many patients remaining symptomatic after behavioral and pharmacologic therapy. Neuromodulation has a distinct role because it targets aberrant reflex activity and sensory signaling in pelvic afferent pathways and spinal–supraspinal circuits rather than directly altering detrusor contractility or outlet resistance.

Methods

This narrative review synthesizes PubMed/MEDLINE literature, major urological guidelines, and evidence syntheses up to May 2026. Evidence was prioritized by methodological robustness and qualitatively synthesized by modality, LUTD phenotype, durability, treatment burden, safety, and clinical relevance.

Results

Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is the most established implant-based approach, with reported 5-year success of approximately 67–82% in non-neurogenic overactive bladder (OAB), although long-term benefit depends on testing, revision risk, and repeated programming. Smaller and rechargeable pulse generators, MRI-conditional systems, and multi-contact leads are reducing historical barriers and enabling more flexible programming; randomized evidence suggests electrode design can improve short-term response. Tibial nerve stimulation has expanded across clinic-based and home-based workflows. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation improves OAB symptoms in sham-controlled trials but requires ongoing visits and maintenance dosing. Transcutaneous approaches reduce procedural burden, although protocol heterogeneity limits comparisons. Implantable tibial neuromodulation provides scheduled home stimulation and shows durable 2-year responder rates in pivotal studies, but comparisons with SNM remain largely indirect. Safety data generally show minor, reversible adverse events.

Conclusion

Neuromodulation is an important LUTD treatment, but better patient selection, neurogenic risk stratification, standardized outcomes, comparative studies, and physiology-guided programming remain priorities.