Skip to main content

Pelvic Floor Electrical Stimulation (PFES)

Pelvic floor electrical stimulation (PFES) delivers current via non-implanted electrodes to recruit pelvic-floor musculature or modulate bladder reflexes, depending on electrode placement and protocol. Tibial-nerve stimulation and extracorporeal magnetic stimulation are related but distinct modalities, discussed below for comparison. For female stress UI, ES is probably more effective than no active or sham treatment; the evidence is insufficient to establish equivalence or superiority to PFMT.[1][2][4]

For PFMT, a first-line conservative treatment for female SUI and a recommended therapy for UUI, see Pelvic Floor PT.[29][30] For office-based tibial-nerve neuromodulation, see Percutaneous Tibial Nerve Stimulation. For implanted neuromodulation, see Sacral Neuromodulation. For incontinence behavioral therapy, see Behavioral Therapy for Urinary Incontinence.

Mechanism​

PFES operates through two distinct neurophysiologic pathways:[2][3][4]

Stress UI (neurostimulation). Stimulation of the motor-efferent fibers of the pudendal nerve elicits direct contraction of the pelvic floor muscles and striated periurethral musculature, supporting urethral closure. Proposed mechanisms: increased muscle bulk, improved active and resting urethral closure, passive exercise in patients who cannot voluntarily contract, and improved tissue vascularity.[2][1]

Urgency UI or OAB (neuromodulation). Stimulation of afferent fibers of the pudendal nerve travels to the sacral cord and reflexively inhibits parasympathetic activity at the sacral micturition center, reducing detrusor overactivity and urgency. Inhibition of detrusor contractions is a proposed mechanism of electrical stimulation for OAB; mechanistic studies have not confirmed it.[5][3][4]

Contraction cue. ES can help women who cannot initiate a pelvic-floor contraction identify the muscles.[1][32] ES and biofeedback are distinct adjuncts: biofeedback uses an external sensor to return information about the patient’s physiologic activity, and a device can provide both functions.[3][35]

Modalities (Non-Implanted)​

Yu's 30-RCT network meta-analysis compared six electrical classes (transcutaneous tibial, percutaneous tibial, trans-sacral, intravaginal, pelvic-floor and electroacupuncture) in women with UI. It did not study magnetic-chair stimulation as an electrical class.[6]

ModalityElectrode placementMechanismTypical schedule
Intravaginal ES (IVES)Vaginal probeDirect pudendal stimulationHome or clinic; 15–20 min, 2×/d or 2–3×/wk
Intra-anal / rectal ESAnal plugDirect pudendal stimulationClinic; for men or when vaginal route is contraindicated[4]
Surface / transcutaneous ESSuprapubic + perineal surface electrodesIndirect pudendal stimulationClinic; 20 min, 2×/wk
PTNS (percutaneous tibial)Needle 5 cm cephalad to medial malleolusRetrograde sacral plexus neuromodulationOffice; 30 min, weekly × 12 wk
TTNS (transcutaneous tibial)Surface electrodes near medial malleolusSame as PTNS, non-invasiveHome; 20–30 min, daily or 3×/wk
Extracorporeal magnetic stimulation (ExMS)Magnetic chair (no electrodes)Magnetic-field-induced pelvic-floor contractionClinic; 20 min, 2×/wk × 8 wk

The 2024 AUA/SUFU OAB guideline classes PTNS as a minimally invasive therapy and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation and electromagnetic therapy as non-invasive therapies.[29]

Stimulation Parameters​

ParameterStress UIUrgency UI / OABMixed UI
Frequency20–50 Hz5–20 Hz (typically 10–12 Hz)20 Hz (compromise)
Pulse width200–1000 μs200–300 μs300 μs
Current intensityTitrate to comfortable effective response within device limitsTitrate to comfortable effective response within device limitsIndividualize within device limits
Duty cycle4–5 s on / 5–8 s off5 s on / 5 s off1:1 ratio
Session duration15–20 min20–30 min15–20 min
Frequency of sessionsDaily–every other day (home), 2–3×/wk (clinic)2×/d or 2–3×/wkEvery other day
Course8–12 wk8–12 wk8 wk

Confirm parameters against the relevant device IFU and clinician protocol.[1][3][4]

Urgent PC PTNS example: 20 Hz, 200 μs, a fine needle near the posterior tibial nerve proximal to the medial malleolus, and 30-min weekly sessions for 12 weeks; sensory or toe responses help confirm placement.[9][29][36] Needle gauge, placement, programming and maintenance vary by system.[9][29]

Efficacy by Indication​

Female stress urinary incontinence​

Cochrane 2017 (Stewart, 56 trials, n = 3,781). ES is probably better than no active or sham treatment for SUI, but certainty differs by comparison and outcome. Evidence for subjective cure or improvement versus PFMT and for adding ES to PFMT is low quality. Quality-of-life benefit versus no treatment has moderate-certainty evidence.[2]

Lunardi 2025 SR / meta (7 RCTs, 411 women): ES is not superior to supervised or unsupervised PFMT for leakage reduction or QoL (very-low certainty).[10]

Goode 2003 JAMA RCT (n = 200): behavioral training alone, behavioral plus PFES, and a self-help booklet. In this 8-week trial, diary episodes fell 68.6% with behavioral training, 71.9% with added PFES, and 52.5% with the booklet; 133/200 women had stress-predominant mixed UI. Adding PFES did not further reduce diary episodes (p = 0.60), but more respondents reported feeling much better than with behavioral training alone (36/47 versus 27/47; post hoc p = 0.048).[1]

Han 2022 meta (9 RCTs versus sham or no treatment, n = 982): in the short term (< 3 months), ES improved incontinence-specific QoL (p = 0.003) and reduced urine leakage (p < 0.00001) but did not significantly reduce the frequency of incontinence episodes. At 3–7.5 months, ES improved QoL and reduced episode frequency but did not significantly reduce urine leakage. Adverse events did not differ from sham or no intervention.[11]

Urgency UI / OAB​

Cochrane 2016 (Stewart): Across heterogeneous ES routes, moderate-quality evidence favored ES for patient-perceived OAB symptom improvement versus PFMT (RR 1.60; n = 195), mixed drug treatments (RR 1.20; n = 439), and placebo/sham (RR 2.26; n = 677). UUI-specific perceived improvement versus sham and persistence after treatment remained uncertain.[4]

Leonardo 2022 meta (8 RCTs, n = 562 overall: 108 received pelvic ES, 204 biofeedback-assisted PFMT, and 250 control treatment; ES compared with PFMT or bladder training alone): MD QoL +7.41 (p = 0.008); MD incontinence episodes −1.33 (p = 0.02); RR cure or improvement 1.46 (p = 0.003).[12]

PTNS for OAB​

Xia 2021 meta (8 RCTs, n = 420): tibial nerve stimulation was comparable to antimuscarinics for micturitions per day, nocturia, urge incontinence and voided volume, with significantly fewer adverse events (p = 0.0001) and lower discontinuation (p = 0.003).[13]

Yu 2024 network meta (30 RCTs; n = 2,447 women with heterogeneous UI types): percutaneous tibial and intravaginal stimulation reduced pooled symptom severity versus control (SMD −1.86 and −0.97, respectively).[6]

PTNS is a minimally invasive OAB option in the 2024 AUA/SUFU guideline. Clinicians may offer minimally invasive therapies through shared decision-making without requiring prior trials of behavioral, non-invasive or drug therapy .[29] Implantable tibial systems are a different device category.[14][29]

Post-radical-prostatectomy incontinence​

ES shows the most consistent benefit in the early postoperative period (1–3 mo):

  • Tang 2025 meta (10 RCTs, ES plus PFME versus PFME alone): short-term ES (≤ 3 mo) improved ICIQ-SF (MD −3.50, p < 0.0001) but not the 24-hour pad test or QoL. At ≥ 6 mo, the long-term subgroup (4 RCTs, n = 177) had lower 24-hour pad weight with ES (MD −21.64, p = 0.02) without a significant ICIQ-SF difference.[15]
  • Zhao 2025 network meta: using continence recovery preferably at 6 months or otherwise the longest reported follow-up, ES plus biofeedback ranked highest (SUCRA 89.9; OR 35.58, 95% CI 2.11–599.55); ES plus biofeedback plus PFMT ranked highest for pad weight and ICIQ-UI SF. Confidence intervals were wide and heterogeneity high.[16]
  • Mariotti 2009 (randomized, n = 60): early combined PFES plus biofeedback (starting 7 d after catheter removal, 12 sessions over 6 wk), 96.7% continence at 6 mo versus 66.7% in controls.[17]
  • Goode 2011 JAMA (n = 208, men with persistent post-prostatectomy incontinence ≥ 1 yr): at 8 wk, behavioral therapy reduced incontinence episodes by 55%, and adding biofeedback plus PFES (51%) did not enhance outcomes.[18]

Fecal incontinence​

  • Cochrane (Norton 2012; 21 trials, n = 1,525): in two pooled trials, failure to achieve full continence was less frequent when ES was added to biofeedback than with biofeedback alone (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46–0.78). One small trial found fewer failures to achieve full continence with biofeedback plus ES than with ES alone (RR 0.47). The review considered the evidence limited.[20]
  • Mundet 2021 RCT (180 women randomized; 151 completed): mean FI severity and FI-specific QoL improved in all four arms without a significant between-arm difference in those mean outcomes; ES plus Kegel yielded more responders than Kegel alone for crossing from Cleveland score ≥9 to <9 (65.6% versus approximately 39%; p = 0.039). Physiologic effects differed by arm: ES plus Kegel increased resting and squeeze pressure and squeeze endurance, and in a 10-patient-per-arm subsample it was the only arm that shortened anal sensory-evoked-potential latency.[21]
  • ACOG PB 210 (2019) addresses conservative treatment and referral for FI[19]; ACG 2021 gives strong recommendations for biofeedback when FI persists after education and conservative measures, and for sacral nerve stimulation when moderate-to-severe FI persists after conservative measures, biofeedback, and other low-cost, low-risk techniques[22]. Small trials in a Cochrane review suggest benefit from combining ES with biofeedback.[19][20][22]

Extracorporeal Magnetic Stimulation​

ExMS is completely non-invasive. The patient sits fully clothed on a magnetic chair, and a pulsed magnetic field induces pelvic-floor contraction. No probes or electrodes are used.[8][23]

  • Yang 2025 meta (14 RCTs): significant ICIQ-SF improvement (SMD −0.73) and QoL (SMD −0.43); no substantial OAB or chronic-pelvic-pain effects.[8]
  • Lim 2017 sham-controlled RCT (n = 120): for SUI, 45/60 (75%) with pulsed MS versus 13/60 (21.7%) with sham had a ≥5-point ICIQ-UI SF reduction at 2 mo (p < 0.001).[24]
  • Lukanović 2025 sham-controlled RCT for UUI (n = 70, 2:1 randomization; 56 completed 6-month follow-up): ICIQ-UI SF −4.05 versus −1.19 (p < 0.001).[25]
  • Li 2026 SUI meta (17 RCTs, n = 1,389): magnetic stimulation-centered treatment favored reported incontinence status, QoL, 1-h pad test, and maximum urethral closure pressure, but the 24-h pad test and pelvic-floor muscle strength did not differ significantly from controls.[26]
  • AUA / SUFU 2023: MS appears safe and may be effective for SUI; data limited by protocol heterogeneity.[7]

Home and Wearable Devices​

  • Traditional home IVES. Battery-powered with vaginal probe; programmed by clinician with patient-adjustable intensity; 15 min every other day in Goode’s 8-week RCT.[1]
  • Innovo neuromuscular electrical stimulation wearable garment (NMESWG). FDA-cleared external garment delivering ES via surface electrodes, no vaginal probe. Pad-weight reductions reported; small samples.[27]
  • Leva intravaginal sensor-based system (IVSBS). Accelerometer-based vaginal sensor with mobile-app feedback (technology-enhanced biofeedback rather than ES). Clinical studies report symptom improvement versus home PFMT; superiority over NMESWG in symptom control or adherence is unestablished.[27]

Contraindications and Adverse Effects​

Device- and route-specific screening. Needle PTNS, surface ES, vaginal or rectal probes and magnetic chairs carry different precautions; trial exclusions are study-specific. Consult the device IFU and the treating specialist before use in a patient with a pacemaker, defibrillator or other electronic implant, during pregnancy, or with metal in a magnetic device's field. Unexplained bleeding or an active local infection is evaluated before an internal probe is used, and internal stimulation is deferred until wounds and postoperative restrictions permit it. For the Urgent PC needle-PTNS system, the manufacturer contraindicates treatment in patients with pacemakers or implantable defibrillators, excessive bleeding tendency, relevant tibial or pelvic-floor nerve damage, and pregnancy or planned pregnancy.[34] Prolapse, other neurological disease and recent GU surgery need individual assessment[2][4][30]

For intracavitary vaginal or anal probes, a symmetrical biphasic waveform has been recommended to limit electrolysis at the mucosal electrode interface, along with a glycerin-free aqueous conductive gel; excessive current is avoided because of discomfort and Joule heating. One chapter source advises against intensities above 50 mA and, if the effect is inadequate at that level, increasing pulse width rather than current. The chapter's advice is dated and device-specific; current device IFUs and applicable electrical-safety standards govern use.[31]

Adverse effects. In three OAB trials (n = 450), adverse effects with ES versus placebo or sham were imprecisely estimated (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.84–1.83; low-certainty evidence).[2][4] Reported AEs:

  • Vaginal discomfort, pain, or tingling (most common)
  • Skin irritation (surface electrodes)
  • UTI
  • Mild bleeding / tenderness
  • Up to 9% of participants receiving pelvic-floor biofeedback with ES for FI may experience discomfort[19]

Serious events were not reported in Yu's included RCTs, and the trials were small and heterogeneous, with incomplete adverse-event reporting.[6]

Guideline Positions​

OrganizationPosition
AUA / SUFU 2023[7]Laser and magnetic/electrical stimulation are emerging therapies; data are inconsistent and of poor quality; ES is probably better than sham or no treatment, but equivalence to PFMT is unclear and the panel found no evidence of superiority over PFME
Cochrane Overview 2022[5]ES probably better than no treatment for SUI; insufficient evidence vs PFMT; adding ES to PFMT may not add benefit
AUA / SUFU OAB 2024[29]PTNS is a minimally invasive option; shared decision-making may bypass required trials of behavioral, non-invasive or drug treatment ; offer SNM, PTNS and/or botulinum toxin after inadequate response or intolerance
NICE NG123 (female UI)[30]Do not routinely use ES for OAB or add ES to PFMT; consider ES and/or biofeedback when a woman cannot actively contract the pelvic floor. Do not offer transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for OAB. Offer percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation only after MDT review, when non-surgical management has not worked and the woman does not want botulinum toxin or sacral neuromodulation
EAU 2026 (Female LUTS)[32]Offer posterior tibial nerve stimulation as an OAB/UUI symptom option ; consider ES for SUI or teaching a pelvic-floor contraction ; do not offer electromagnetic stimulation for SUI outside a regulated research study
ACOG PB 210 (2019)[19]ES is an adjunct to biofeedback / PFMT for FI; ACOG cites a 2012 Cochrane review in which biofeedback + ES may be more effective than either alone and an AHRQ 2016 review that found it no more effective than biofeedback alone
ACG 2021[22]Sacral nerve stimulation for FI refractory to conservative therapy; PTNS evidence insufficient for FI
EAU 2026 (Male UI)[33]Offer PFMT alone or with biofeedback and/or ES to men undergoing radical prostatectomy to speed UI recovery . Evidence on the added value of ES is conflicting; one meta-analysis found higher continence recovery at 1 and 3 months with guided biofeedback and/or ES added to PFMT, while another review found insufficient ES benefit

Synthesis — Where PFES Fits​

  1. PFMT remains a first-line conservative therapy for female SUI and a recommended therapy for UUI.[29][30] PFES is not clearly superior to supervised PFMT for any indication.[2][10]
  2. NICE NG123 advises considering PFES and/or biofeedback for women who cannot actively contract the pelvic floor to aid motivation and adherence; EAU 2026 also gives a Weak recommendation to consider electrical stimulation as an adjunct for teaching contraction.[30][32][3][1][30][32]
  3. Adding PFES to PFMT has mixed post-prostatectomy results across outcomes and follow-up intervals: a 2025 meta-analysis found a short-term ICIQ-SF benefit without a significant 24-hour pad-test difference at ≤3 months, but a significant pad-weight difference at ≥6 months.[15][16][28]
  4. PTNS ranked highest for symptom severity in Yu's network of women with UI, with moderate-to-low confidence and heterogeneous populations. A smaller pooled comparison (Xia, tibial nerve stimulation) found similar symptom outcomes to antimuscarinics with fewer reported adverse effects.[6][13][29]
  5. Magnetic stimulation has positive sham-controlled SUI reports, but the EAU 2026 female LUTS guideline strongly recommends against offering electromagnetic stimulation for SUI outside a regulated research study.[8][26][24][32] 6.[19][20] For fecal incontinence, two pooled trials found fewer failures to achieve full continence with ES added to biofeedback than with biofeedback alone.[19][20]

Summary​

Non-implanted pelvic-floor ES can be a selected adjunct to PFMT and behavioral therapy. Tibial-nerve stimulation is a related OAB neuromodulation modality; magnetic stimulation is distinct and uses no electrodes. For female SUI, ES probably improves outcomes versus no active treatment but is not established as equivalent or superior to PFMT. Consider ES or biofeedback to aid a woman who cannot actively contract the pelvic floor; do not routinely add ES to PFMT when a good contraction is possible. PTNS can be offered for OAB through shared decision-making without a mandatory step-therapy sequence; national guidance differs on TTNS.[2][6][13][20][29][30]

References​

1. Goode PS, Burgio KL, Locher JL, et al. Effect of behavioral training with or without pelvic floor electrical stimulation on stress incontinence in women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(3):345-352. doi:10.1001/jama.290.3.345.

2. Stewart F, Berghmans B, Bø K, Glazener CM. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;12:CD012390. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012390.pub2.

3. Berghmans B, Hendriks E, Bernards A, de Bie R, Omar MI. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for urinary incontinence in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(6):CD001202. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001202.pub5.

4. Stewart F, Gameiro LF, El Dib R, et al. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;12:CD010098. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010098.pub4.

5. Todhunter-Brown A, Hazelton C, Campbell P, et al. Conservative interventions for treating urinary incontinence in women: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;9:CD012337. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012337.pub2.

6. Yu TY, Yu CY, Escorpizo R, et al. Comparison of nonimplantable electrical stimulation in women with urinary incontinence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):26957. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-78358-7.

7. Kobashi KC, Vasavada S, Bloschichak A, et al. Updates to surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI): AUA/SUFU guideline (2023). J Urol. 2023;209(6):1091-1098. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003435.

8. Yang Z, Liao J, Zhang S, Zhang M, Qiao L. Effectiveness of extracorporeal magnetic stimulation in the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2025;44(6):1302-1317. doi:10.1002/nau.70082.

9. Zomkowski K, Kammers I, Back BBH, et al. The effectiveness of different electrical nerve stimulation protocols for treating adults with non-neurogenic overactive bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(5):1045-1058. doi:10.1007/s00192-022-05088-7.

10. Lunardi AC, Foltran GC, Carro DF, et al. Efficacy of electrical stimulation in comparison to active training of pelvic floor muscles on stress urinary incontinence symptoms in women: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Disabil Rehabil. 2025;47(13):3256-3267. doi:10.1080/09638288.2024.2419424.

11. Han X, Shen H, Chen J, Wu Y. Efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation for stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(4):789-799. doi:10.1007/s00192-021-04928-2.

12. Leonardo K, Seno DH, Mirza H, Afriansyah A. Biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training and pelvic electrical stimulation in women with overactive bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(6):1258-1269. doi:10.1002/nau.24984.

13. Xia L, Yan H, Sun Y, et al. Pooled analysis of the efficacy and safety of tibial nerve stimulation versus antimuscarinic agents in the management of overactive bladder syndrome. Medicine. 2021;100(45):e27745. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000027745.

14. Lee UJ, MacDiarmid S, Matthews CA, Gillespie E, Peters KM. Tibial nerve stimulation for urge urinary incontinence and overactive bladder: narrative review of randomized controlled trials and applicability to implantable devices. Adv Ther. 2024;41(7):2635-2654. doi:10.1007/s12325-024-02864-3.

15. Tang G, Liu M, Chen X, et al. Effectiveness of electrical stimulation for treating male urinary incontinence after prostatectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Surg. 2025;111(9):6351-6361. doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000002685.

16. Zhao L, Yang JW, Wang L, et al. Comparative efficacy of multimodal physical therapies for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2025. doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000004237.

17. Mariotti G, Sciarra A, Gentilucci A, et al. Early recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy using early pelvic floor electrical stimulation and biofeedback associated treatment. J Urol. 2009;181(4):1788-1793. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.104.

18. Goode PS, Burgio KL, Johnson TM, et al. Behavioral therapy with or without biofeedback and pelvic floor electrical stimulation for persistent postprostatectomy incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305(2):151-159. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1972.

19. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 210: fecal incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(4):e260-e273. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003187.

20. Norton C, Cody JD. Biofeedback and/or sphincter exercises for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(7):CD002111. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002111.pub3.

21. Mundet L, Rofes L, Ortega O, Cabib C, Clavé P. Kegel exercises, biofeedback, electrostimulation, and peripheral neuromodulation improve clinical symptoms of fecal incontinence and affect specific physiological targets: a randomized controlled trial. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2021;27(1):108-118. doi:10.5056/jnm20013.

22. Wald A, Bharucha AE, Limketkai B, et al. ACG clinical guidelines: management of benign anorectal disorders. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(10):1987-2008. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001507.

23. He Q, Xiao K, Peng L, et al. An effective meta-analysis of magnetic stimulation therapy for urinary incontinence. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):9077. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-45330-9.

24. Lim R, Liong ML, Leong WS, Karim Khan NA, Yuen KH. Pulsed magnetic stimulation for stress urinary incontinence: 1-year followup results. J Urol. 2017;197(5):1302-1308. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.11.091.

25. Lukanović D, Antič A, Pavčnik M, et al. Magnetic stimulation in the treatment of urgency urinary incontinence: a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2026;37(6):1593-1603. doi:10.1007/s00192-025-06491-6.

26. Li N, Li L, Zang Y, et al. Rehabilitation effect of magnetic stimulation on female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2026;173(2):686-697. doi:10.1002/ijgo.70723.

27. Sherman A, Rebullar K, Dmochowski R. A comparison of neuromuscular external stimulator and motion-based sensor devices for the management of urinary incontinence. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2026;23(3):229-234. doi:10.1080/17434440.2026.2626009.

28. Sciarra A, Viscuso P, Arditi A, et al. A biofeedback-guided programme or pelvic floor muscle electric stimulation can improve early recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(10):e14208. doi:10.1111/ijcp.14208.

29. Cameron AP, Chung DE, Dielubanza EJ, et al. The AUA/SUFU guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 2024. doi:10.1002/nau.25532.

30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management (NG123), recommendations 1.4.8-1.4.10, 1.4.14-1.4.15. Recommendations.

31. Berghmans B. Electrical stimulation and magnetic stimulation. In: Cardozo L, Staskin D, eds. Textbook of Female Urology and Urogynecology. Vol 1: Clinical Perspectives. 5th ed. CRC Press; 2023:501-508. doi:10.1201/9781003144236-52

32. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Non-neurogenic Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. 2026, section 4.2.4.a.7. Disease management

33. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on the Management of Non-neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. 2026, sections 5.6.3.b.3-4. Disease management

34. Cogentix Medical. Urgent PC Stimulator: Instructions for Use (UPC 200-B). PN 4288 Rev G; 2016. PDF.

35. Bø K, Frawley HC, Haylen BT, et al. "An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of female pelvic floor dysfunction." Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(2):221-244. doi:10.1002/nau.23107.

36. Cogentix Medical. Urgent PC Stimulator Instructions for Use (UPC 200-A, PN 4287 Rev. E). 2015. Manufacturer IFU.