What companies manufacture sacral nerve stimulation and tibial nerve stimulation devices for urinary incontinence?
Executive summary
The main manufacturers of implantable sacral neuromodulation devices for urinary incontinence are Medtronic (InterStim) and Axonics (Axonics SNM), which are repeatedly identified in clinical literature, hospital patient leaflets and company material [1] [2] [3]. For tibial nerve stimulation, two implantable systems with regulatory authorization for urgency urinary incontinence cited in recent reviews and clinical summaries are eCoin (Valencia Technologies) and Revi (BlueWind Medical); the tibial field also includes many non‑implant options (PTNS/TTNS) and newer implantable prototypes reported in first‑in‑human studies [4] [5] [6].
1. Sacral neuromodulation: market leaders and clinical staples
Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) for overactive bladder and urinary incontinence is dominated in the literature and patient materials by Medtronic’s InterStim system and the Axonics SNM system. Medtronic’s InterStim is described as the established SNS/SNM device in clinical overviews and specialist sites [1], while Axonics promotes its rechargeable SNM system and is listed on provider leaflets and company product pages as an active competitor [2] [3]. Multiple academic reviews note the long history of SNM since early approvals in the 1990s and reference InterStim as the canonical device in much of the published work [7] [1].
2. Why only a few names surface: consolidation and regulatory history
SNM’s regulatory and clinical history helps explain why Medtronic and Axonics appear most often. The first implantable sacral nerve stimulator reached FDA approval in the late 1990s and hundreds of thousands of devices have been implanted since; academic safety and registry work tends to concentrate on the leading, approved systems and their long‑term data [7] [8]. Hospital patient information pages and specialty clinics likewise report using Medtronic or Axonics devices, reflecting both market share and established clinical pathways [3] [9].
3. Tibial nerve stimulation: two implantable brands with authorization, plus many delivery formats
Tibial nerve stimulation (TNS) exists across three delivery categories: percutaneous (PTNS), transcutaneous (TTNS), and implantable tibial nerve stimulation (ITNS). Reviews and specialist summaries identify two implantable ITNS devices that have received marketing authorization for urgency urinary incontinence: eCoin (Valencia Technologies) and Revi (BlueWind Medical). These names are specifically cited in narrative and clinical review pieces as the authorized ITNS options to date [4] [10]. At the same time, the literature stresses that PTNS and TTNS remain widely used, and that new implantable prototypes are entering first‑in‑human feasibility studies [5] [6].
4. Evidence landscape: established SNM studies vs. growing ITNS data
Sacral neuromodulation has decades of clinical trials, registry data and guideline citations supporting use for refractory overactive bladder and incontinence; much of that evidence references InterStim and similar SNM technologies [1] [11]. By contrast, implantable tibial stimulation is a newer category: randomized data exist for PTNS and TTNS, but the body of medium‑ and long‑term evidence for ITNS is still maturing. Reviews explicitly note that PTNS data inform ITNS development while ITNS clinical literature (including pivotal and feasibility studies) is expanding [5] [12] [6].
5. What providers and patients see in practice: choices and tradeoffs
Clinical and hospital materials emphasize that providers commonly offer Medtronic InterStim or Axonics for SNM and may compare both systems with patients during counseling [9] [3]. For tibial approaches, clinics may deliver PTNS in office or recommend TTNS wearables; ITNS options such as eCoin are presented as implantable alternatives that reduce clinic visit burden, but reviewers caution about the need for longer follow‑up and broader comparative data [10] [13].
6. Limitations, competing viewpoints and gaps in available reporting
Available sources clearly name Medtronic and Axonics for sacral systems and eCoin and Revi for implantable tibial systems [1] [2] [4] [10]. Sources also report prototype and first‑in‑human ITNS devices in development [6]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive market list beyond these manufacturers; market reports and device‑company pages likely list additional players but are not included in the current document set [14]. Some clinical reviews note inconsistent efficacy across studies for TTNS versus sham and urge cautious interpretation of emerging ITNS efficacy claims [15] [16].
If you want, I can: (a) assemble a concise table of the products named in these sources with their manufacturer and delivery modality (implantable vs. percutaneous/transcutaneous), or (b) pull direct links and short quotes from the cited articles to support clinic discussions.