What medical treatments for urinary incontinence exist and who developed them?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Urinary incontinence is treated with a wide spectrum of options: conservative care (pelvic floor muscle training, bladder training), medications and injections (antimuscarinics, onabotulinumtoxinA/Botox), neuromodulation therapies (tibial and sacral nerve stimulators, including implantable systems such as eCoin, Revi, Altaviva), and surgical implants or slings (mid‑urethral slings, artificial urinary sphincters); major summaries and guidelines list behavioral therapy, medications, nerve stimulation and surgery as core approaches [1] [2]. Recent device innovation has come from established device makers (Medtronic’s Altaviva ITNM) and smaller medtech firms (BlueWind/Revi, eCoin developers), while academic groups publish novel lasers, biomaterials and injectable bulking agents that may shift practice [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Conservative care first — what it is, who promotes it
Clinical overviews and major centers place behavioral and pelvic‑floor therapies at the front of treatment: pelvic floor muscle training (Kegels), bladder training, biofeedback and lifestyle changes are recommended initial steps for stress and urge incontinence [1] [2]. Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins both present these measures as first‑line options before escalating to devices or surgery, reflecting long‑standing guideline practice [2] [1].
2. Drugs and injections — established options and new candidates
Pharmacologic therapy for overactive bladder and urge incontinence remains a staple; older agents and regional approvals vary — for example, duloxetine has approval for stress urinary incontinence in Europe but not universally [8]. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) is used for overactive bladder and is under ongoing study and market attention; industry briefings and clinical trials continue to evaluate new drug candidates [8] [9].
3. Neuromodulation’s rapid expansion — tibial to sacral to implantables
Nerve stimulation has evolved from clinic‑based PTNS (percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation) and sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) to patient‑friendly and implantable tibial systems. Johns Hopkins describes ankle‑worn tibial neuromodulation and highlights clinicians trained to deliver it [10]. The eCoin implant, FDA‑cleared in 2022 for urgency urinary incontinence, and newer entrants such as Revi and Medtronic’s Altaviva (an implantable tibial neuromodulation device approved in 2025) show how commercial players and academic investigators are converting neuromodulation into convenient, at‑home therapies [4] [5] [3].
4. Devices and market players — who is building what
Medtronic announced FDA approval of its Altaviva implantable tibial neuromodulation device in Sept. 2025 and presents the product as a minimally invasive, MRI‑compatible option for an estimated 16 million people with urgency [3]. BlueWind and its Revi system report pivotal trial data and industry awards for a drug‑free therapy for urge incontinence [5]. Academic centers and smaller firms also market bulking agents (Bulkamid®) and novel minimally invasive implants for stress incontinence, reflecting a competitive device market [11] [12].
5. Surgery and materials — slings, sphincters and material debates
Surgical slings and artificial urinary sphincters remain definitive treatments for refractory stress incontinence; mid‑urethral slings are standard surgical options, though material safety (polypropylene mesh) has sparked concern and research into alternatives such as polyurethane slings in preclinical models [13] [7]. The literature and device announcements show both continuing reliance on sling procedures and active work on safer implant materials [13] [7].
6. Emerging and experimental approaches — lasers, regenerative medicine
Recent research papers describe non‑ablative transurethral laser therapy as a potential new approach for stress urinary incontinence, and market commentary cites regenerative medicine (stem cells, tissue engineering) as an area of promise for future durable treatments [6] [14]. These approaches are largely investigational in reporting and require further validation before clinical replacement of established therapies [6] [14].
7. Outcomes, adoption and competing narratives
Device manufacturers frame implantable neuromodulation as transformative and convenient (Medtronic’s PR and industry coverage), while academic reviews stress a stepped approach from conservative care to invasive therapy [3] [1]. Market research highlights rapid commercial growth and strong investment in minimally invasive devices, which creates incentives for product development but also raises questions about long‑term comparative evidence and material safety [15] [16] [7].
Limitations and gaps in reporting: available sources summarize treatments and name key device developers and academic investigators, but they do not provide exhaustive attribution for every therapy’s original inventor or the full history of surgical technique development; those specifics are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).