Effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle biofeedback electrical stimulation combined with pelvic floor muscle training for mild to moderate postpartum stress urinary incontinence / 中华围产医学杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To analyze the effects of pelvic floor muscle biofeedback electrical stimulation (PEMS) combined with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and PFMT alone on mild to moderate stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after delivery.Methods:This retrospective study involved 1 087 postpartum women with mild or moderate SUI who were admitted to the Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University from January 2017 to January 2021. According to the treatment approaches, they were divided into two groups the PMES+PFMT group ( n=504) and the PFMT group ( n=583). Chi-square test, independent sample t-test and rank sum test were used to compare the objective indicators (pelvic floor muscle strength test, vaginal dynamic pressure value test, 1-h pad test) and subjective indicators [incontinence impact questionnaire short form (IIQ-7), incontinence questionnaire-urinary incontinence short form (ICI-Q-SF), pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12)] before, immediate and three months after treatment between the two groups. Results:There was no significant difference between the two groups in the values of vaginal dynamic pressure before treatment, 1-h pad test results and subjective indicators (all P>0.05). Comparison within groups Indicators were improved in both groups immediate and three months after treatment compared with before treatment, including strength of type Ⅰ muscle [PMES+PFMT group grade 4 and 5 (normal) 43.5% (219/504) and 42.1% (212/504) vs 1.2% (6/504), χ 2=864.27 and 861.46; PFMT group grade 4 and 519.2% (112/583) and 20.1% (117/583) vs 1.5% (9/583), χ 2=1 148.26 and 1 038.29] and class Ⅱ muscle strength [PMES+PFMT group 48.4% (244/504) and 50.8% (256/504) vs 4.8% (24/504), χ 2=862.96 and 819.24; PFMT group 37.4% (218/583) and 38.9% (227/583) vs 5.0% (29/583), χ 2=1 029.47 and 998.54; all P < 0.05].Vaginal dynamic pressure increased [PMES+PFMT group (89.3±5.4) and (82.2±4.6) vs (67.5±12.7) cmH 2O (1 cmH 2O=0.098 kPa), t=802.13 and 845.54; PFMT group(80.2±4.3) and (78.6±4.5) vs (66.9±14.2) cmH 2O, t=288.37 and 244.94], and 1-hour urine leakage reduced [PMES+PFMT group 2.0 g (2.0-3.0 g) and 2.0 g (1.0-3.0 g) vs 6.0 g (5.0-6.0 g), Z=825.39 and 802.13; PFMT group 4.0 g (3.0-5.0 g) and 3.0 g (3.0-4.0 g) vs 5.0 g (4.0-6.0 g), Z=836.34 and 811.25], and IIQ-7 scores [PMES+PFMT group scores of 3 (2-4) and 4 (3-4) vs 8 (7-9), Z=959.52 and 825.87; PFMT group 5 (4-5) and 5 (4-6) vs 8 (7-10), Z=916.27 and 903.18], and ICI-Q-SF score [PMES+PFMT group 3.5 (3-4) and 4 (3-5) vs 10 (9-12), Z=952.79 and 924.94; PFMT group 6 (4-7) and 6 (5-7) vs 11 (10-12), Z=1 049.89 and 998.15], and PISQ-12 score [PMES+PFMT group 10 (7-12) and 9 (7-12) vs 21 (17-24), Z=862.55 and 887.17; PFMT group 13 (11-16) and 14 (12-16) vs 22 (18-25), Z=1 026.73 and 934.86, all P<0.05) decreased. Compared with the PFMT group, the above indexes were all better in the PMES+PFMT group (all P<0.05). Conclusion:PFMT alone or in combination with PMES can both enhance pelvic floor muscle strength, increase vaginal dynamic pressure, alleviate urine leakage and improve the quality of life and PMES+PFMT is better and more effective.