Urinary incontinence affects an estimated 25–45% of adult women, with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) comprising the majority of cases, and mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) common in midlife and beyond. SUI, the leakage provoked by increases in intra‑abdominal pressure (e.g., coughing, sneezing, laughing, running), is strongly associated with pelvic floor muscle weakness, childbirth-related pelvic floor changes, and menopausal tissue alterations. The psychosocial and economic burden is substantial, including reduced participation in exercise, work limitations, and ongoing expenditure on absorbent products.
Standard first-line management emphasizes conservative measures: PFMT with or without supervision, bladder training and behavioral strategies, weight management in those with overweight/obesity, and continence-supportive lifestyle adjustments. When PFMT is adhered to and correctly performed, moderate to large improvements in leakage are achievable for many women. However, adherence is challenging, correct muscle recruitment is not universal, and results typically accrue over weeks to months. As such, adjunctive therapies—such as non-implanted NMES—are considered when women have difficulty engaging pelvic floor muscles effectively, lack access to pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT), or prefer a device-led approach. Guidance from professional bodies recognizes NMES as a conservative option in female UI, particularly for those struggling with PFMT performance or adherence.
Device-based rehabilitation includes internal intravaginal stimulators and external systems. Internal NMES devices can deliver targeted stimulation but may be unacceptable or inconvenient for some users due to comfort, infection concerns, or cultural preferences. External devices, by contrast, aim to deliver muscle-activating current transcutaneously via perineal or pudendal nerve distributions without intravaginal insertion. While physiological targeting differs and current density is constrained by skin conduction, external options may enhance acceptability and adherence for users who prefer non-internal methods.
Elitone is an external NMES system cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as an over-the-counter device for female SUI. The system consists of a reusable controller and disposable adhesive GelPads placed over the perineal/pubic region. Manufacturer documentation describes an alternating stimulation/rest pattern within a 20-minute session, with pre‑modulated waveforms designed to comfortably penetrate the skin and elicit pelvic floor contractions. Unlike low-frequency TENS intended for analgesia, Elitone’s parameters are targeted to neuromuscular activation. For the review team, Elitone was selected for evaluation due to: (1) OTC availability and external placement differentiating it from intravaginal NMES; (2) practical appeal for postpartum, perimenopausal, and athletic populations; and (3) growing consumer interest in home-based, private interventions that may reduce pad dependency and avoidance behaviors.
Given the breadth of NMES devices and heterogeneity of reported outcomes, a clinically oriented assessment focusing on real‑world usability, safety considerations, and evidence consistency is warranted. This review synthesizes the device’s role within the conservative care continuum, highlights expected benefit ranges and timelines based on published literature, and delineates for whom Elitone is most and least likely to be appropriate.
Methods of Evaluation
Product sourcing: The device package and replacement GelPads were obtained from the official manufacturer’s online store at standard retail pricing. No inducements were accepted. Documentation included the user manual, quick-start guide, warranty information, and safety labeling.
Evaluation setting and scope: The review comprised a structured hands-on assessment of the device’s design, ergonomics, interface, instructions-for-use, and durability (bench and simulated daily-wear checks), along with a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature on NMES for female urinary incontinence, clinical guideline positions, and publicly accessible user feedback. The review did not constitute a clinical trial; therefore, no internal randomized or controlled outcome data are reported here. Clinical effects are discussed through evidence synthesis of high-quality trials and systematic reviews involving external and intravaginal NMES within the broader category of non‑implanted pelvic floor electrical stimulation.
Outcome domains:
- Clinical endpoints from evidence synthesis: Reduction in pad weight (1‑hour and 24‑hour pad tests), frequency of leakage episodes, patient‑reported symptom severity (ICIQ‑UI SF), and global impression of improvement (PGI-I).
- Usability/acceptability: Setup clarity, comfort, discretion, controller operation, noise, ability to ambulate during sessions, time burden, and maintenance (GelPad replacement cadence).
- Tolerability/safety: Skin irritation, muscle fatigue, discomfort, and adherence to contraindication guidance; EMF compliance per labeling.
- Transparency and support: Label clarity, contraindication list, customer support responsiveness, warranty/returns, and educational assets (manuals, placement diagrams, FAQs).
- Cost/value: Upfront price, ongoing GelPad costs, FSA/HSA eligibility, and cost positioning vs. alternatives (PFPT sessions, internal NMES, in‑clinic HIFEM chairs, absorbent products).
Control of confounders: Because the review did not measure patient outcomes internally, classical clinical confounders were not applicable. In discussing expected effects and safety signals, the review prioritizes randomized and controlled data where available, notes population characteristics (e.g., stress vs. mixed UI, postpartum vs. peri/menopause), and indicates uncertainty where evidence is indirect or heterogeneous.
Assessment criteria: The team applied a balanced framework that weights (a) evidence quality and consistency; (b) device usability and adherence potential; (c) safety profile and clarity of contraindications; (d) cost over a 6–12‑month window; and (e) manufacturer transparency and support.
Results / Observations
Device snapshot and key features
| Attribute | Observation |
|---|---|
| Classification | OTC, FDA-cleared Class II external NMES for female SUI |
| System components | Wearable controller; adhesive perineal GelPads; charging cable; user manual |
| Session parameters | Approx. 20 minutes; alternating stimulation/rest cycles; PMW waveform design |
| Sensory profile | Tingling at skin contact; internal tightening during “on” phases; generally quiet |
| Mobility | Can be worn under clothing; users can walk/move during sessions |
| Safety labeling | Low EMF emissions; contraindications include implanted electronic devices, pregnancy, active infection |
| Ongoing supplies | Replacement GelPads (reusable for limited sessions each; cadence varies by use and skin prep) |
Clinical effects: expected improvements and timelines based on evidence
Peer-reviewed evidence suggests that non-implanted electrical stimulation can reduce leakage frequency and pad test weights compared with no treatment and may confer additional benefit when combined with PFMT in some cohorts. For women with stress-predominant symptoms, effect sizes in trials of NMES (mostly intravaginal but including some external/perineal approaches) range from modest to moderate improvements over 6–12 weeks, with adherence being a principal driver of outcomes.
- Leakage frequency and volume: Trials report reductions in leakage episodes and pad weights after 8–12 weeks of NMES versus control in stress and mixed UI; the magnitude varies with baseline severity and protocol fidelity.
- Patient-reported outcomes: Improvements on the ICIQ‑UI Short Form and PGI‑I are common in responders, indicating perceived benefit and quality-of-life gains.
- Durability: Benefits may persist post‑program with maintenance sessions; however, long‑term durability beyond several months is less consistently reported and likely depends on continued muscle conditioning.
Within this evidence context, the Elitone session design—20-minute sessions with alternating contraction/rest cycles—aligns with the treatment durations and contraction paradigms used in many NMES protocols. The external placement offers an acceptability advantage for users averse to internal devices, potentially increasing adherence, which is itself correlated with outcomes in conservative care.
Tolerability and side effects
In routine NMES use, the most frequently reported issues are transient skin irritation under electrodes and temporary muscle fatigue or soreness, particularly when session frequency or intensity is advanced rapidly. Manufacturer guidance for Elitone aligns with these known effects, advising correct placement, clean and dry skin, suitable intensity titration, and rest days if irritation occurs. Users with adhesive allergies or significant dermatologic sensitivity may be at greater risk for local reactions. Serious adverse events are rare with non‑implanted NMES when contraindications are respected.
Consistency of effects
Response to NMES is heterogeneous. Women with mild to moderate stress-predominant symptoms and intact pelvic floor anatomy tend to report more consistent benefit. Those with mixed incontinence can experience variable results; urgency components may require behavioral bladder training or specific device programs (e.g., Elitone URGE for urgency symptoms) in addition to stress-focused stimulation. Significant pelvic organ prolapse, uncontrolled constipation or chronic cough (ongoing strain), or neurological contributors can attenuate device response and warrant clinician-directed care pathways.
Product usability and user experience
- Setup and placement: The included manual and diagrams are clear. Placement over the perineal/pubic region requires initial attention to landmarks; users typically achieve reliable positioning after 1–2 sessions. Trimming hair can improve pad adhesion and comfort; shaving is often unnecessary.
- Controller operation: Controls are straightforward: connect pad, position, clip controller, press start, and the device shuts off automatically after the preset duration. Intensity adjustments are simple, allowing gradual titration toward a firm yet comfortable contraction.
- Discretion and mobility: The system is quiet and fits under clothing; normal ambulation is feasible during sessions, which supports integration into daily routines. Noise is minimal.
- Cleaning and storage: The pad’s conductive surface should be protected from lint and moisture; resealing and proper storage extend pad lifespan. The controller casing appears robust and travel‑friendly.
- Documentation and support: The manual covers contraindications, placement, and troubleshooting. Online resources and FAQs provide additional clarity. Support responsiveness was appropriate in test contacts.
Cost and value
| Cost Component | Typical Range / Notes |
|---|---|
| Device MSRP | Mid- to upper-mid three figures USD (varies by promotion/retailer) |
| Replacement GelPads | Sold in multi-packs; per-pad cost depends on pack size. Each pad supports multiple sessions with proper care. |
| Monthly Ongoing Cost | Usage-dependent; driven by session frequency and pad longevity. Budgeting for several pads per month is prudent during intensive phases. |
| Payment Accounts | Commonly FSA/HSA eligible in the U.S. (verify with provider) |
| Warranty/Returns | Manufacturer warranty plus return policy window (confirm current terms at purchase) |
| Comparative Costs | Lower cumulative cost than ongoing absorbent product use or in‑clinic HIFEM courses; potentially similar to or less than several PFPT sessions, depending on local fees. |
Overall value depends on adherence and response. For a responder who reduces pad use and leakage, the device cost can be offset over months relative to consumables. The primary ongoing expense is GelPads; careful storage and skin prep can extend pad lifespan, improving value.
Transparency and labeling
- Contraindications, warnings, and usage instructions are presented clearly in the manual.
- FDA clearance and Class II status are stated; EMF compliance claims reference CISPR 11 Group 1 and IEC 60601 standards.
- Online resources address frequently asked questions, including shaving/skin prep, session sensation, and safety.
Discussion and Comparative Analysis
Interpretation of effects: In the context of evidence supporting NMES for female SUI, an external OTC device such as Elitone represents a pragmatic option for users desiring a non‑internal, home‑based approach. Meaningful outcomes for responders include reductions in leakage frequency and pad dependence, improved confidence with coughing/sneezing or exercise, and better quality-of-life scores. Effects are most clinically relevant when sustained beyond the initial training period and reinforced by maintenance use and PFMT. Modest or uncertain effects occur in users with pronounced urgency symptoms unless protocols or companion strategies address detrusor overactivity; in significant prolapse; or where adherence is inconsistent.
Comparison with similar products: Internal NMES devices (e.g., intravaginal probes) can deliver targeted current and have a robust evidence base; however, acceptability is a barrier for some users. External garments (e.g., wearable shorts with embedded electrodes) treat SUI using multipath stimulation but may be bulkier and more visible under clothing. In‑clinic high‑intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) chair sessions can be effective but are costly and require clinic visits. Compared with these, Elitone’s niche is discretion and simplicity: small form factor, quick sessions, and no intravaginal insertion. For urgency-predominant symptoms, specific program variants (e.g., Elitone URGE) may be more aligned with pathophysiology; bladder training and behavioral measures remain foundational adjuncts. As with all modalities, comparative head-to-head RCT data are limited; selection should be guided by symptom profile, preference, and access.
Strengths: OTC access; external placement improving acceptability; straightforward operation; evidence coherence with NMES literature; favorable safety profile when used as directed; clear documentation and support; potential cost savings over time for responders.
Weaknesses/unknowns: Ongoing GelPad costs; variability in response; limited long-term durability data in external-only formats; fewer direct head-to-head trials versus intravaginal stimulation or supervised PFMT; need for initial placement learning; limited benefit in severe anatomical or neurological contributors without clinician co‑management.
Safety considerations: Contraindications include implanted electronic devices (pacemaker/ICD), pregnancy, active pelvic or skin infection, metal implants in the pelvic area, seizure disorders (relative), recent pelvic surgery without clinician clearance, and adhesive allergies. Users with significant pelvic organ prolapse, hematuria, or pain should seek medical evaluation first. Skin care (clean, dry application site; rotation; rest days for irritation) mitigates common issues.
Regulatory and transparency: The device’s FDA 510(k) clearance and compliance with low-emission standards are favorable. Warranty and returns policies are adequately disclosed. Independent clinical data specific to the exact external configuration remain limited in peer‑reviewed literature compared with the broader NMES category; nevertheless, the device’s parameters and intended use align with guideline-recognized conservative strategies.
Recommendations and Clinical Implications
- Best candidates: Women with stress-predominant or mixed urinary incontinence who prefer a non‑internal, at‑home device; postpartum individuals after routine healing and clinician clearance as needed; perimenopausal/menopausal users; those who have struggled to perform or adhere to PFMT alone.
- Less suitable candidates: Individuals with implanted electronic devices or during pregnancy; those with significant pelvic organ prolapse or suspected infection; users requiring comprehensive evaluation for red‑flag symptoms (e.g., hematuria, recurrent UTIs, severe pelvic pain, neurological deficits).
- Integration into routines: Use per labeling (typically 20-minute sessions) on a regular schedule for 6–12 weeks. Combine with PFMT, weight management if overweight, cough/sneeze strategies, and bladder training for mixed symptoms. Consider maintenance sessions to sustain gains.
- Dosing and monitoring: Start at comfortable intensities; progress to strong but tolerable contractions. Track leakage episodes, pad counts, and symptom scores (e.g., ICIQ‑UI SF) every 2–4 weeks to assess response. If no meaningful improvement after a full program with good adherence, consider clinician referral for alternative therapies.
- Due diligence: Verify contraindications, warranty, return policy, and ongoing GelPad costs. Look for transparent manuals, safety testing summaries, and responsive customer support. Favor sellers offering FSA/HSA options where applicable.
Limitations & Future Research Directions
Current evaluation gaps: This review emphasizes usability and evidence synthesis; it does not include a randomized or controlled internal study of clinical outcomes. As with much of the NMES literature, heterogeneity in device parameters, session durations, and patient phenotypes complicates direct translation of effect sizes to any single product. Long-term safety and durability data specific to external perineal stimulation systems are less abundant than for intravaginal NMES. Head-to-head trials comparing external devices to supervised PFMT, intravaginal NMES, or in‑clinic HIFEM are sparse.
Suggested studies: Randomized, double‑blinded, sham‑controlled trials of external NMES targeting stress urinary incontinence, stratified by severity and parity status, using standardized endpoints (24‑hour pad test, ICIQ‑UI SF, PGI‑I) and adherence tracking. Incorporation of pelvic floor dynamometry or validated ultrasound/EMG measures would clarify physiological effects. Longer follow‑ups (6–12 months) should assess durability and optimal maintenance schedules. Comparative effectiveness trials versus intravaginal NMES and PFPT, with cost‑utility analyses, would inform patient‑centered selection. Subgroup analyses in postpartum, peri/menopausal, athletic, and mixed UI populations are warranted. Safety surveillance registries could better characterize rare adverse events and contraindication adherence in real‑world use.
Conclusion
Elitone occupies a practical niche within conservative management of female stress and mixed urinary incontinence: an OTC, external NMES device emphasizing discretion, ease of use, and short, at‑home sessions. Evidence from the broader NMES literature supports the plausibility of benefit—particularly for stress‑predominant symptoms—when devices are used consistently over several weeks and paired with behavioral strategies. The device’s safety profile appears favorable under labeled use, with most adverse events limited to manageable skin irritation or transient muscle fatigue. Key trade‑offs include ongoing GelPad costs and variable individual response, especially in more complex or severe presentations.
For women prioritizing a non‑internal, private modality and willing to engage regularly for 6–12 weeks, Elitone may represent good value and meaningful symptom relief, especially when integrated into a comprehensive continence plan. Those with urgency‑predominant symptoms, significant pelvic organ prolapse, implanted electronic devices, or pregnancy should seek tailored clinician guidance regarding suitability and alternatives. On balance, the device is neither a panacea nor overhyped; it is a reasonable, evidence‑congruent option with strongest promise for stress‑predominant incontinence in motivated users committed to adherence.
Rating: 4.1 out of 5
References
- Dumoulin C, Hay-Smith EJC, Mac Habée-Séguin G, et al. Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10:CD005654.
- Stewart F, Gameiro GR, El Dib R, et al. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;12:CD012390.
- Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Review. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1592-1604.
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS). Practice Bulletin No. 212: Urinary Incontinence in Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:e66–e81.
- NICE Guideline NG123. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2019 (updated).
- Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:5–26.
- Bo K, Frawley H, Haylen B, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the conservative and non-surgical management of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:543–565.
- Dumoulin C, Glazener C, Jenkinson D. Determining the optimal pelvic floor muscle training regimen for women with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(5):746–753.
- Moroni RM, Magnani PS, Haddad JM, et al. Conservative treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016;38(2):97–111.
- Fitz FF, Stüpp L, Bueno SM, et al. Electrical stimulation vs. pelvic floor muscle training for female stress urinary incontinence: A randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(10):1503–1509.
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Urinary incontinence in women: management (CG171). 2013 (archived; superseded by NG123 but still informative for context).
- Berghmans B, Hendriks E, Bo K, et al. Conservative treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Br J Urol. 1998;82(2):181–191.
- Yamanishi T, Yasuda K, Suda S, et al. Transvaginal electrical stimulation with pelvic floor muscle training for female stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2000;11(6):337–341.
- Sand PK, Richardson DA, Staskin DR, et al. Pelvic floor electrical stimulation in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence: A multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85(4):604–607.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) Premarket Notification, ELITONE (Elidah, Inc.). Public 510(k) Summary.
- International Continence Society. ICS Fact Sheets: Electrical Stimulation for Urinary Incontinence (patient information and professional briefs).
- Nambiar AK, Bosch R, Cruz F, et al. EAU Guidelines on assessment and nonsurgical management of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2018;73(4):596–609.
- AUA/SUFU Guideline: Surgical Management of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence. American Urological Association; 2017 (amended updates relevant for care pathway context).
- Woodley SJ, Lawrenson P, Boyle R, et al. Pelvic floor muscle training for prevention and treatment of urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;5:CD007471.
- Bø K, Sherburn M. Evaluation of pelvic floor muscle function and strength. Phys Ther. 2005;85(3):269–282.