Does electrical stimulation in the lower urinary tract increase urine production? A randomised comparative proof-of-concept study in healthy volunteers

Lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To summarize the current literature on lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment (LUTESA), with regard to current perception thresholds (CPTs) and sensory evoked potentials (SEPs), and to discuss the applied methods in terms of technical aspects, confounding factors, and potential for lower urinary tract (LUT) diagnostics.

Methods

The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline (PubMed), Embase and Scopus were searched on 13 October 2020. Meta‐analyses were performed and methodological qualities of the included studies were defined by assessing risk of bias (RoB) as well as confounding.

Results

After screening 9925 articles, 80 studies (five randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 75 non‐RCTs) were included, comprising a total of 3732 patients and 692 healthy subjects (HS). Of these studies, 61 investigated CPTs exclusively and 19 reported on SEPs, with or without corresponding CPTs. The recording of LUTCPTs and SEPs was shown to represent a safe and reliable assessment of LUT afferent nerve function in HS and patients. LUTESA demonstrated significant differences in LUT sensitivity between HS and neurological patients, as well as after interventions such as pelvic surgery or drug treatments. Pooled analyses showed that several stimulation variables (e.g. stimulation frequency, location) as well as patient characteristics might affect the main outcome measures of LUTESA (CPTs, SEP latencies, peak‐to‐peak amplitudes, responder rate). RoB and confounding was high in most studies.

Conclusions

Preliminary data show that CPT and SEP recordings are valuable tools to more objectively assess LUT afferent nerve function. LUTESA complements already established diagnostics such as urodynamics, allowing a more comprehensive patient evaluation. The high RoB and confounding rate was related to inconsistency and inaccuracy in reporting rather than the technique itself. LUTESA standardization and well‐designed RCTs are crucial to implement LUTESA as a clinical assessment tool.

Scalp Topography of Lower Urinary Tract Sensory Evoked Potentials

Impaired lower urinary tract (LUT) afferents often cause LUT symptoms. Assessment of LUT afferent pathways is possible using bipolar cortical sensory evoked potential (SEP) recordings with the active electrode at the vertex during electrical stimulation in the LUT. This study aimed to investigate the topographical distribution and microstates of lower urinary tract sensory evoked potentials (LUTSEPs) using different stimulation frequencies. Ninety healthy subjects (18-36 years old, 40 women) were randomly assigned to one of five stimulation locations [bladder dome; trigone; proximal, membranous (men only) or distal urethra]. Cycles of 0.5 Hz/1.1 Hz/1.6 Hz electrical stimulation were applied using a custom-made catheter. Cortical activity was recorded from 64 surface electrodes. Marker setting was performed manually on an individual subject-level for the P1, N1, and P2 components of vertex recordings. N1 and P2 topographies presented with central negativities and positivities around the vertex. Regarding topographical distribution, Randomization Graphical User interface (RAGU) analyses revealed consistent frequency effects and microstates for N1/P2. Higher stimulation frequencies resulted in decreasing map strength for P1, N1, and P2. LUTSEP topographies suggest central generators in the somatosensory cortex, which are not detectable in a bipolar set-up. The observed frequency effect indicates fiber refractoriness at higher frequencies. The multichannel approach allows more comprehensive assessment of LUTSEPs and might therefore be sensitive to pathological changes. Examinations in patients with LUT symptoms are needed to further investigate this biomarker.

Quantitative electrical pain threshold assessment in the lower urinary tract

AIMS

Assessing the reliability of electrical pain threshold (PT) and evaluating the impact of stimulation frequency at different locations in the healthy lower urinary tract (LUT).

METHODS

Ninety subjects (age: 18.3-35.8 years, 40 females, 50 males) were randomly allocated to one stimulation site (bladder dome [BD], trigone, proximal, membranous (only males), or distal urethra). Using 0.5 Hz/1.1 Hz/1.6 Hz electrical stimulation (square wave, pulse width:1 ms), current perception thresholds (CPTs), PTs and tolerance thresholds were assessed at two visits. Analyses were performed using linear mixed models, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS

PTs vary in relation to stimulation frequency, location and between genders. PT decreased with higher stimulation frequency. The highest PTs were measured at the BD and membranous urethra with males reporting higher PTs than females. Reliability of PT assessments according to ICC was good to excellent across all frequencies, locations, and genders (ICC = 0.61-0.97), except for BD and distal urethra in females showing poor to fair reliability (BD: all frequencies, distal urethra: 0.5 Hz).

CONCLUSIONS

PTs can be safely and reliably assessed from bladder and urethral locations. Semi-objective PT assessment may provide additional information on functionality and sensitivity of the LUT slow fiber afferents and complement findings from urodynamic investigations and CPT assessments. In conclusion, the developed methodology may open new opportunities for using electrical stimulation paradigms for LUT PT assessments and diagnostics. All this allows a more precise, location-specific characterization of pain origin and pain reaction towards therapy.