Spinal Cord Research Help
AboutCategoriesLatest ResearchContact
Subscribe
Spinal Cord Research Help

Making Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Research Accessible to Everyone. Simplified summaries of the latest research, designed for patients, caregivers and anybody who's interested.

Quick Links

  • Home
  • About
  • Categories
  • Latest Research
  • Disclaimer

Contact

  • Contact Us
© 2025 Spinal Cord Research Help

All rights reserved.

  1. Home
  2. Research
  3. Spinal Cord Injury
  4. Ambulatory urodynamic monitoring assessment of dorsal genital nerve stimulation for suppression of involuntary detrusor contractions following spinal cord injury: a pilot study

Ambulatory urodynamic monitoring assessment of dorsal genital nerve stimulation for suppression of involuntary detrusor contractions following spinal cord injury: a pilot study

Spinal Cord Series and Cases, 2020 · DOI: 10.1038/s41394-020-0279-4 · Published: March 28, 2020

Spinal Cord InjuryUrologyNeurology

Simple Explanation

Spinal cord injury (SCI) can disrupt the neural control of the lower urinary tract (LUT), leading to neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). This condition is characterized by involuntary detrusor contractions, often at low volumes, causing high detrusor pressures, feelings of urgency, urinary incontinence, and incomplete emptying. Dorsal genital nerve stimulation (DGNS) has shown promise in suppressing involuntary detrusor contractions and increasing bladder capacity. DGNS appears to work by activating the urethral sphincter and bladder neck, alongside inhibition of parasympathetic pathways and excitation of detrusor-inhibiting sympathetic pathways. This study aimed to trial on-demand, continuous or intermittent DGNS protocols, selected as appropriate for individual people with SCI depending on residual bladder sensation, using AUM to assess the effect on bladder pressure and capacity.

Study Duration
7 days
Participants
5 people with chronic suprasacral SCI and urodynamically proven NDO
Evidence Level
Pilot study using within-individual comparisons

Key Findings

  • 1
    Bladder capacity was increased from 244 ± 59 to 346 ± 61 ml (p = 0.0078), a mean change of 46 ± 25%.
  • 2
    Maximum detrusor pressure was decreased from 58 ± 18 to 47 ± 18 cmH2O (p = 0.0156), a change of 17 ± 13%, and average peak detrusor pressure was decreased from 56 ± 16 to 31 ± 128 cmH2O (p = 0.0156), a mean reduction of 50 ± 19%.
  • 3
    There was an increase in the number of detrusor contractions from the first involuntary detrusor contraction to a strong desire, urgency or incontinence, from 1.5 ± 1.4 to 4.3 ± 1.7, and an increase in time of 23 ± 22 min.

Research Summary

This study assessed the effect of dorsal genital nerve stimulation (DGNS) on urine-storage parameters in participants with spinal cord injury (SCI) and neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) during natural bladder filling. Ambulatory urodynamic monitoring (AUM) was carried out with and without DGNS, before and after a week of using DGNS at home. Urodynamic outcomes were improved using DGNS. DGNS may be applied on-demand, intermittently or continuously, to increase bladder capacity, decrease storage pressures and provide extra time. Improvements were made in addition to existing antimuscarinic medication regimes.

Practical Implications

Improved Bladder Management

DGNS can be used as an adjunctive method of improving management of NDO, potentially allowing for increased bladder capacity and reduced peak storage pressures.

On-Demand Continence Control

DGNS can increase the time between first sensation and urinary leakage, providing users with greater control over continence.

Personalized Stimulation Protocols

DGNS can be applied on-demand, intermittently, or continuously, allowing for personalized treatment protocols based on individual needs and bladder sensation.

Study Limitations

  • 1
    Small sample size of five participants.
  • 2
    Bladder sensations during natural filling could have been better assessed.
  • 3
    Baseline urodynamic parameters following home use of DGNS were only obtained from three of the five participants.

Your Feedback

Was this summary helpful?

Back to Spinal Cord Injury