磁波椅是從西元1998年開始用於應力性尿失禁的治療，它的治療原理是藉由內建磁圈產生的脈衝磁場穿透至骨盆內，刺激骨盆底的神經，進而使骨盆底肌肉產生收縮，經由反覆的肌肉收縮訓練，可增強骨盆底肌肉的強度及耐受度。磁波椅治療其實類似於凱格爾運動，只是凱格爾運動需要患者主動從事運動訓練，而磁波椅則是藉由機器幫助患者訓練肌肉，治療過程安全、輕鬆且無任何不適，因此患者接受度相當高。然而，關於磁波椅用於尿失禁治療效果的臨床研究其實不多，且大多是一些小規模、沒有對照組及追蹤時間短暫之實證等級低的研究，因此磁波椅一直未被列入尿失禁治療準則內的非手術治療選項。

本篇文獻是來自於馬來西亞的研究，這是個隨機雙盲對照研究，總共收集了120位21歲以上罹患應力性尿失禁的女性，隨機分為兩組，治療組接受磁波椅治療（每週兩次，持續兩個月，總共16次治療），控制組接受同樣療程但極低能量的偽治療（全部療程總能量低於治療組一次療程能量）。兩個月後，若是治療效果不好或是對療效不滿意，兩組的患者皆可選擇是否要接受額外16個療程的治療（無論原始分組為治療還是控制組，皆給予真實的療程）。主要療效評估標準為ICIQ-UI SF（評估尿失禁的問卷，總分21分，分數愈高代表尿失禁愈嚴重）問卷總分下降五分則定義為治療有效，評估時間點在第1、2、5、8及14個月。

第二個月的評估結果顯示治療組的治療有效比例顯著高於控制組（75% vs 21.7%）。在兩個月的療程完成之後，有40%治療組的患者選擇接受額外兩個月療程的治療，而控制組則有高達68%患者選擇接受額外治療。第14個月的追蹤評估顯示接受真實療程數目愈多的患者，其治療有效比例最高（32次：16次：0次＝75%：70%：21%）。即便治療有效比例高達七成，且兩個月療程的治療效果可持續至少一年，但平均的主觀痊癒（完全不會漏尿）機率僅有37%，客觀痊癒（一小時棉墊測試漏尿量小於一克）機率為58%。

總結來說，如果應力性尿失禁患者不願意或是不適合接受手術，磁波椅可做為治療的選項之一，七成患者治療後會改善，但治癒機率很低。

摘要
Purpose: Despite significant differences in success rates between surgical and nonsurgical treatments for female stress urinary incontinence, a few cross- sectional surveys showed that most patients still prefer the latter. We evalu- ated the efficacy of the under studied nonsurgical treatment using pulsed magnetic stimulation for female stress urinary incontinence.

Materials and Methods: This randomized, double-blind, sham controlled study was performed in 120 female subjects at least 21 years old with stress urinary incontinence. Treatment involved pulsed magnetic stimulation for 2 sessions per week for 2 months (16 sessions). After 2 months, subjects could opt for 16 additional sessions regardless of initial randomization. The primary response criterion was a 5-point reduction in the ICIQ-UI SF (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence-Short Form) score. Key secondary response criteria included objective and subjective cure, supplemented by other secondary criteria. Followups were performed at months 1, 2, 5, 8 and 14.

Results: At 2 months 45 of 60 subjects (75%) in the active arm vs 13 of 60 (21.7%) in the sham arm were treatment responders (p <0.001). After 2 months 24 subjects (40%) in the active arm and 41 (68%) in the sham arm elected additional active pulsed magnetic stimulation. At 14 months, subjects who received 32 sessions of active pulsed magnetic stimulation had the highest percentage of treatment responders (18 of 24 or 75.0%), followed by those who received 16 sessions (26 of 36 or 72.2% and 28 of 41 or 68.3%) and those who did not receive any active pulsed magnetic stimulation (4 of 19 or 21.1%) (p <0.001).

Conclusions: The encouraging long-term response rates show that pulsed mag- netic stimulation is an attractive nonsurgical alternative for patients who do not want to undergo surgery.