ABSTRACT
We undertook this work to compare the treatment efficacies and the changes of quality of life after pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercise and the functional electrical stimulation (FES)-biofeedback treatment, both of which are being widely used as conservative treatment methods for female urinary incontinence. We randomly selected 60 female incontinence patients who visited our department and divided them evenly into two groups. They were treated for a period of 6 weeks. The subjective changes in the severity of incontinence and discomfort in daily and social life were measured using a translated version of the questionnaire by Jackson. Objective changes of pelvic muscle contraction force were measured using a perineometer. Pre- and post-treatment maximal pelvic floor muscle contractile (PMC) pressure and changes in the severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort of the two groups showed statistically significant differences (p>0.001). In particular the FES-biofeedback group showed significantly increased maximal PMC pressure and a decreased severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort compared to the intensive PFM exercise group (p>0.001). In conclusion, FES-biofeedback proved more effective than simple PFM exercise.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Activities of Daily Living , Biofeedback, Psychology , Exercise Therapy/methods , Muscle Contraction , Muscles , Pelvic Floor , Treatment Outcome , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/therapy , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/psychology , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/prevention & control , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/physiopathologyABSTRACT
We undertook this work to compare the treatment efficacies and the changes of quality of life after pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercise and the functional electrical stimulation (FES)-biofeedback treatment, both of which are being widely used as conservative treatment methods for female urinary incontinence. We randomly selected 60 female incontinence patients who visited our department and divided them evenly into two groups. They were treated for a period of 6 weeks. The subjective changes in the severity of incontinence and discomfort in daily and social life were measured using a translated version of the questionnaire by Jackson. Objective changes of pelvic muscle contraction force were measured using a perineometer. Pre- and post-treatment maximal pelvic floor muscle contractile (PMC) pressure and changes in the severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort of the two groups showed statistically significant differences (p>0.001). In particular the FES-biofeedback group showed significantly increased maximal PMC pressure and a decreased severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort compared to the intensive PFM exercise group (p>0.001). In conclusion, FES-biofeedback proved more effective than simple PFM exercise.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Activities of Daily Living , Biofeedback, Psychology , Exercise Therapy/methods , Muscle Contraction , Muscles , Pelvic Floor , Treatment Outcome , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/therapy , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/psychology , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/prevention & control , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/physiopathologyABSTRACT
This study's purpose was to compare the treatment efficacy and the effects on the patients' quality of life of the pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercise and the functional electrical stimulation (FES)-biofeedback method. Ninety female incontinence patients were randomly selected and evenly divided into three groups: control, intensive PFM exercise, and FES-biofeedback groups. They were treated for 6 weeks. The subjective changes in the severity of incontinence and discomfort in daily and social life were measured using a translated version of Jackson's Bristol female urinary symptom questionnaire. Objective changes of pelvic muscle contraction force were measured by perineometer. Pre and post-treatment maximal pelvic floor muscle contractile pressure (PMC pressure) among the three groups showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.001). Especially the FES-biofeedback group showed significantly increased maximal PMC pressure compared with other groups (p < 0.001). From the questionnaire, pre and post-treatment changes in the severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort due to incontinence showed significant differences among the three groups (p < 0.001). The level of discomfort in daily life, social activity, physical activity, personal relations and discomfort due to urinary symptoms had largely changed and the FES-biofeedback group, in particular, showed a significant decrease after treatment. In conclusion, when PFM exercise and FES-biofeedback were compared in terms of their effects on the patients' quality of life, FES-biofeedback proved to be more effective than verbal explanation or simple PFM exercise.