Pelvic floor reeducation for stress incontinence: comparing three methods

Abstract

Stress urinary incontinence is a common problem among women of all ages but may resolve with pelvic floor reeducation in many cases. Compliance to a regimen of pelvic floor muscle exercises is poor and many devices have been produced to make exercising these muscles more effective and interesting. This article describes a study in which two such devices - vaginal cones and pressure biofeedback - were compared with pelvic floor exercises alone. The results show that there is no statistically significant difference between the three modalities; all treatments produced significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life scores.

Systematic review and economic modelling of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence

“…Fifteen studies 120,122,[146][147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158] evaluated the effect of adding BF to PFMT (Table 16). In two studies by Glavind and colleagues 150 and Wilson and colleagues, 157 the women randomised to use BF had more clinic visits than the PFMT group.…”

“…Five studies 120,147,152,153,158 reported condition-specific quality of life using four different measures (Table 17). In four of these studies results were similar for both groups, but in one study, 158 women reported statistically significantly better quality of life in the PFMT group than with those using BF.…”

“…115,129,152,[178][179][180][181] Three of these studies, namely Bø and colleagues (1999), 115 Cammu and colleagues (1998) 181 and Peattie and colleagues (1988), 180 provided intensive supervision (more than two sessions per month) for the PFMT group (with or without BF) but basic supervision (two or fewer sessions per month) for the VCs group. The other studies provided basic supervision for both groups.…”

“…107,119,121,122,129,130,132,135,141,142,144,145,150,152,154,155,162,163,165,168,172,176,179,180,184,185,188,[190][191][192][193]196 The remaining 22 studies (25.0%) did not provide sufficient information about withdrawals, dropouts and those lost to follow-up.…”

“…The majority of studies (52.3%) failed to report results for everyone who entered into the trial, 57,[115][116][117][118][119]122,124,[129][130][131][132][133]135,[137][138][139][140][141][143][144][145]150,152,154,156,159,162,164,[166][167][168]176,178,180,183,185,[187][188][189][190][196][197][198][199] while in 24 studies (27.3%), it was unclear whether results accounted for all participants originally randomised. 107,120,121,134,136,142,148,153,157,158,160,161,165,169-174, 179,186,193-195 Few studies explicitly stated that participants were analysed in the groups that they had been originally allocated to but no study showed clear evidence that this was not done.…”