Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author
van der Lely, Stephanie
dc.contributor.author
Liechti, Martina D.
dc.contributor.author
Popp, Werner L.
dc.contributor.author
Schmidhalter, Melanie R.
dc.contributor.author
Kessler, Thomas M.
dc.contributor.author
Mehnert, Ulrich
dc.date.accessioned
2019-06-12T16:21:06Z
dc.date.available
2019-06-12T02:07:19Z
dc.date.available
2019-06-12T16:21:06Z
dc.date.issued
2019-05-24
dc.identifier.issn
1932-6203
dc.identifier.other
10.1371/journal.pone.0217503
en_US
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/346871
dc.identifier.doi
10.3929/ethz-b-000346871
dc.description.abstract
Trial design During electrical stimulation in the lower urinary tract for the purpose of current perception threshold and sensory evoked potential recording, we observed that bladder volume increased rapidly. The aim of this prospective randomised comparative proof-of-concept study was to quantify urine production per time during stimulation of the lower urinary tract using different stimulation frequencies. Methods Ninety healthy subjects (18 to 36 years old) were included. Forty females and 50 males were randomly assigned to one of the following study groups: dome, trigone or proximal, membranous (males only) or distal urethra. Starting from 60mL prefilling, stimulation was performed at two separate visits with a 14 French custom-made catheter using randomly applied frequencies of 0.5Hz, 1.1Hz, 1.6Hz (each with 500 stimuli). After each stimulation cycle per frequency, urine production was assessed. Main outcome measures represented urine production during stimulation, daily life and their ratio. Results Lower urinary tract electrical stimulation increased urine production per time compared to bladder diary baseline values. Linear mixed model showed that frequency (p<0.001), stimulation order (p = 0.003), intensity (p = 0.042), and gender (p = 0.047) had a significant influence on urine production. Location, visit and age had no significant influence. Conclusions Urine production is increased during electrical stimulation with a bigger impact of higher frequencies. This might be relevant for methodological aspects in the assessment of lower urinary tract afferent function and for patients with impaired renal urine output. Inhibition of renal sympathetic nerve activity by vagal afferents may be the underlying mechanism.
en_US
dc.format
application/pdf
en_US
dc.language.iso
en
en_US
dc.publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
en_US
dc.rights.uri
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.title
Does electrical stimulation in the lower urinary tract increase urine production? A randomised comparative proof-of-concept study in healthy volunteers
en_US
dc.type
Journal Article
dc.rights.license
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
ethz.journal.title
PLoS ONE
ethz.journal.volume
14
en_US
ethz.journal.issue
5
en_US
ethz.journal.abbreviated
PLoS ONE
ethz.pages.start
e0217503
en_US
ethz.size
16 p.
en_US
ethz.version.deposit
publishedVersion
en_US
ethz.identifier.wos
ethz.identifier.scopus
ethz.publication.place
San Francisco, CA
en_US
ethz.publication.status
published
en_US
ethz.date.deposited
2019-06-12T02:07:23Z
ethz.source
WOS
ethz.eth
yes
en_US
ethz.availability
Open access
en_US
ethz.rosetta.installDate
2019-06-12T16:21:16Z
ethz.rosetta.lastUpdated
2019-06-12T16:21:16Z
ethz.rosetta.exportRequired
true
ethz.rosetta.versionExported
true
ethz.COinS
ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&amp;rft.atitle=Does%20electrical%20stimulation%20in%20the%20lower%20urinary%20tract%20increase%20urine%20production?%20A%20randomised%20comparative%20proof-of-concept%20study%20in%20he&amp;rft.jtitle=PLoS%20ONE&amp;rft.date=2019-05-24&amp;rft.volume=14&amp;rft.issue=5&amp;rft.spage=e0217503&amp;rft.issn=1932-6203&amp;rft.au=van%20der%20Lely,%20Stephanie&amp;Liechti,%20Martina%20D.&amp;Popp,%20Werner%20L.&amp;Schmidhalter,%20Melanie%20R.&amp;Kessler,%20Thomas%20M.&amp;rft.genre=article&amp;
 Search via SFX

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Publication type

Show simple item record