Premium
Transvaginal radiofrequency energy for the treatment of urinary stress incontinence: A comparison of monopolar and bipolar technologies in both pre‐ and post‐menopausal patients
Author(s) -
Abdelaziz Ahmed,
Dell Jeffrey,
Karram Mickey
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
neurourology and urodynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1520-6777
pISSN - 0733-2467
DOI - 10.1002/nau.24748
Subject(s) - medicine , urinary incontinence , distress , bipolar disorder , genitourinary system , randomized controlled trial , surgery , urology , lithium (medication) , clinical psychology
Aim A study to compare the effect of two different radio frequency energy models (mono polar and bipolar) for the treatment of urinary stress incontinence. Methods Retrospective chart review, which was conducted at 2 sites, 69 patients received treatment with a bipolar radiofrequency device. Out of those 69 patients, 13 patients received bipolar in conjugation with CO 2 laser treatment, while 32 patients received monopolar frequency. The study protocol normally consists of three sessions of treatment. Each session was four weeks apart with a whole 6‐month duration follow‐up. Results were evaluated by urogenital distress inventory (UDI)‐6 questionnaire before and after treatment. Results The bipolar group improved UDI‐6 scores across time more so than did the monopolar group with some evidence suggesting that the bipolar radiofrequency treatment was more effective compared to the monopolar radiofrequency. Three months after treatment, the bipolar group UDI‐6 values were lower than those of the monopolar group. Six months after treatment, the UDI‐6 scores increased in both groups, suggesting decrease efficacy with time however, the bipolar group's UDI‐6 scores were consistently lower than the monopolar group's scores. Conclusion This study shows benefit of both monopolar and bipolar radiofrequency device in patients with stress urinary incontinence and mixed UI, with bipolar RF more efficacious than monopolar RF. More randomized prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.