Limits...
Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of pelvic floor muscle training, electrical stimulation, vaginal cones, and no active treatment in the management of stress urinary incontinence.

Castro RA, Arruda RM, Zanetti MR, Santos PD, Sartori MG, Girão MJ - Clinics (Sao Paulo) (2008)

Bottom Line: No significant difference was found between groups in the urodynamic parameters.In the control group, only 21% patients were satisfied with the treatment.Based on this study, pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, and vaginal cones are equally effective treatments and are far superior to no treatment in women with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Urogynecology and Vaginal Surgery Section, Department of Gynecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. rodrigo.castro@uol.com.br

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, vaginal cones, and no active treatment in women with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence.

Patients and methods: One hundred eighteen subjects were randomly selected to receive pelvic floor exercises (n=31), ES (n=30), vaginal cones (n=27), or no treatment (untreated control) (n=30). Women were evaluated before and after completion of six months of treatment by the pad test, quality of life questionnaire (I-QOL), urodynamic test, voiding diary, and subjective response.

Results: In the objective evaluation, we observed a statistically significant reduction in the pad test (p=0.003), in the number of stress urinary episodes (p<0.001), and a significant improvement in the quality of life (p<0.001) in subjects who used pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, and vaginal cones compared to the control group. No significant difference was found between groups in the urodynamic parameters. In the subjective evaluation, 58%, 55%, and 54% of women who had used pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, and vaginal cones, respectively, reported being satisfied after treatment. In the control group, only 21% patients were satisfied with the treatment.

Conclusion: Based on this study, pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, and vaginal cones are equally effective treatments and are far superior to no treatment in women with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Flow of participants through trial
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2664121&req=5

f1-cln63_4p0465: Flow of participants through trial

Mentions: A total of 118 women were randomized into four groups, 17 (14%) of whom withdrew from the study, leaving a total of 101 subjects who completed the trial. Nine (7.6%) of the women abandoned the study for lack of clinical improvement less than six weeks of treatment: two belonged to the pelvic floor muscle training group, one from the electrical stimulation group, four from the vaginal cone group, and two from the untreated group. Eight (6.4%) of the women withdrew their consent and could not complete the study (change of city, family problems, pregnancy): one from the pelvic floor muscle training group (pregnancy), two from the electrical stimulation group (family problem, pregnancy), two from the vaginal cone group (family problems, change of city), and three women from the untreated group (change of city) (Figure 1). This left 26 women in the pelvic floor muscle training, 27 in the electrical stimulation group, 24 in the vaginal cones group, and 24 in the untreated group (Figure 1).


Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of pelvic floor muscle training, electrical stimulation, vaginal cones, and no active treatment in the management of stress urinary incontinence.

Castro RA, Arruda RM, Zanetti MR, Santos PD, Sartori MG, Girão MJ - Clinics (Sao Paulo) (2008)

Flow of participants through trial
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2664121&req=5

f1-cln63_4p0465: Flow of participants through trial
Mentions: A total of 118 women were randomized into four groups, 17 (14%) of whom withdrew from the study, leaving a total of 101 subjects who completed the trial. Nine (7.6%) of the women abandoned the study for lack of clinical improvement less than six weeks of treatment: two belonged to the pelvic floor muscle training group, one from the electrical stimulation group, four from the vaginal cone group, and two from the untreated group. Eight (6.4%) of the women withdrew their consent and could not complete the study (change of city, family problems, pregnancy): one from the pelvic floor muscle training group (pregnancy), two from the electrical stimulation group (family problem, pregnancy), two from the vaginal cone group (family problems, change of city), and three women from the untreated group (change of city) (Figure 1). This left 26 women in the pelvic floor muscle training, 27 in the electrical stimulation group, 24 in the vaginal cones group, and 24 in the untreated group (Figure 1).

Bottom Line: No significant difference was found between groups in the urodynamic parameters.In the control group, only 21% patients were satisfied with the treatment.Based on this study, pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, and vaginal cones are equally effective treatments and are far superior to no treatment in women with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Urogynecology and Vaginal Surgery Section, Department of Gynecology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. rodrigo.castro@uol.com.br

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, vaginal cones, and no active treatment in women with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence.

Patients and methods: One hundred eighteen subjects were randomly selected to receive pelvic floor exercises (n=31), ES (n=30), vaginal cones (n=27), or no treatment (untreated control) (n=30). Women were evaluated before and after completion of six months of treatment by the pad test, quality of life questionnaire (I-QOL), urodynamic test, voiding diary, and subjective response.

Results: In the objective evaluation, we observed a statistically significant reduction in the pad test (p=0.003), in the number of stress urinary episodes (p<0.001), and a significant improvement in the quality of life (p<0.001) in subjects who used pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, and vaginal cones compared to the control group. No significant difference was found between groups in the urodynamic parameters. In the subjective evaluation, 58%, 55%, and 54% of women who had used pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, and vaginal cones, respectively, reported being satisfied after treatment. In the control group, only 21% patients were satisfied with the treatment.

Conclusion: Based on this study, pelvic floor exercises, electrical stimulation, and vaginal cones are equally effective treatments and are far superior to no treatment in women with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus