Correction to: Is percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) effective for fecal incontinence (FI) in adults compared with sham electrical stimulation? A meta‑analysis

Background Sacral nerve neuromodulation (SNM) has been considered the optimal second-line treatment for fecal incontinence (FI). However, SNM involves high cost and requires highly skilled operators. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) has emerged as an alternative treatment modality for FI, yielding varying clinical outcomes. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PTNS compared to sham electrical stimulation for FI. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies from May 12, 2012 to May 12, 2022. Results Four randomized controlled studies were included in this review, involving a total of 439 adult patients with FI (300 in the PTNS group and 194 in the sham electrical stimulation group). Our meta-analysis revealed that PTNS demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing weekly episodes of FI compared to the control groups (MD − 1.6, 95% CI − 2.94 to − 0.26, p = 0.02, I 2 = 30%). Furthermore, a greater proportion of patients in the PTNS group reported more than a 50% reduction in FI episodes per week (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57–0.94, p = 0.02, I 2 = 6%). However, no significant differences were observed in any domains of the FI Quality of Life (QoL) and St Mark’s incontinence scores (MD – 2.41, 95% CI – 5.1 to 0.27, p = 0.08, I 2 = 67%). Importantly, no severe adverse events related to PTNS were reported in any of the participants. Conclusions Our meta-analysis revealed that PTNS was more effective than sham stimulation in reducing FI episodes and led to a higher proportion of patients reporting more than a 50% reduction in weekly FI episodes.