ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2026
Genital bar electrode for dorsal genital nerve stimulation: feasibility and safety of a novel approach for managing bowel dysfunction and overactive bladder.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectrical stimulation of the dorsal genital nerve (DGN) using a patch electrode is effective in treating bowel dysfunction (BD) with faecal urgency and/or incontinence and overactive bladder (OAB). Keeping the patch electrode in place during stimulation may be challenging. This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of inserting a novel genital bar electrode for DGN stimulation.
methodA vertical clitoral hood piercing with a specially designed genital bar electrode was inserted under aseptic conditions with topical anaesthesia in women who had undergone DGN stimulation via a patch electrode, and reported subjective symptom improvement. After a 4-week healing period, stimulation with the bar electrode was initiated, followed by completion of a similar symptom diary to that with the patch electrode.
resultsAll 14 patients included in the study completed it. No procedure-related complications occurred. During the healing period, 10 patients experienced minor transient adverse events: mild bleeding or pain (n = 7 each), swelling (n = 4), redness (n = 3), and isolated numbness, irritation, or itching (n = 1 each). Nine patients experienced stimulation-related adverse events, mainly local pain or discomfort. Granulation tissue developed in one case. Urgency and incontinence episodes were reduced by a median of 70% and 59%, respectively, during genital bar electrode stimulation, with symptom responses similar to those observed with patch electrode stimulation.
conclusionInserting a genital bar electrode is feasible and safe. Preliminary results indicate a symptom response comparable to patch electrode stimulation in the majority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.