Symptom and Quality of Life Improvements After Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in a Clinical Population of Women With Pelvic Pain and Other Symptoms.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate changes in validated symptom scores at intake and discharge in women undergoing pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) for pain and other pelvic floor symptoms. METHODS: Consecutive women starting PFPT during 1 year were reviewed. History, demographics, and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire - Short Form 20 (PFDI) total and domain scores (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6, Urogenital Distress Inventory-6, Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory-8), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and pain levels on a numeric rating scale (NRS) were collected at intake and discharge. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and sign tests. RESULTS: Of 474 women, mean age was 50.3 ± 16.7 years (range, 18-87 years) and the most common indication for PFPT was pelvic pain (208/474; 43.9%). In women with complete data, pretreatment to posttreatment median scores improved on the PFDI (77.3 vs 41.8; P < 0.0001), Urogenital Distress Inventory (37.5 vs 16.0; P < 0.0001), and PFIQ (58.0 vs 19.0; P < 0.0001), and the minimal clinically important difference was met for the PFDI, PFIQ, and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory. Women with primarily pelvic pain (n = 208) achieved significant improvements in PFDI, PFIQ, and NRS scores (P < 0.0001 for all) as well as the minimal clinically important difference for these measures. Pain patients with a history of pelvic surgery (n = 50) also had significant improvements in PFIQ and NRS but not PFDI scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most women referred to PFPT demonstrated symptom improvements as measured by validated instruments.

Randomized multicenter feasibility trial of myofascial physical therapy for the treatment of urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes.

PURPOSE: We determined the feasibility of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to compare 2 methods of manual therapy (myofascial physical therapy and global therapeutic massage) in patients with urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited 48 subjects with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome or interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome at 6 clinical centers. Eligible patients were randomized to myofascial physical therapy or global therapeutic massage and were scheduled to receive up to 10 weekly treatments of 1 hour each. Criteria to assess feasibility included adherence of therapists to prescribed therapeutic protocol as determined by records of treatment, adverse events during study treatment and rate of response to therapy as assessed by the patient global response assessment. Primary outcome analysis compared response rates between treatment arms using Mantel-Haenszel methods. RESULTS: There were 23 (49%) men and 24 (51%) women randomized during a 6-month period. Of the patients 24 (51%) were randomized to global therapeutic massage, 23 (49%) to myofascial physical therapy and 44 (94%) completed the study. Therapist adherence to the treatment protocols was excellent. The global response assessment response rate of 57% in the myofascial physical therapy group was significantly higher than the rate of 21% in the global therapeutic massage treatment group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We judged the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial of physical therapy methods and the preliminary findings of a beneficial effect of myofascial physical therapy warrants further study.

Randomized multicenter feasibility trial of myofascial physical therapy for the treatment of urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes.

PURPOSE: We determined the feasibility of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to compare 2 methods of manual therapy (myofascial physical therapy and global therapeutic massage) in patients with urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited 48 subjects with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome or interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome at 6 clinical centers. Eligible patients were randomized to myofascial physical therapy or global therapeutic massage and were scheduled to receive up to 10 weekly treatments of 1 hour each. Criteria to assess feasibility included adherence of therapists to prescribed therapeutic protocol as determined by records of treatment, adverse events during study treatment and rate of response to therapy as assessed by the patient global response assessment. Primary outcome analysis compared response rates between treatment arms using Mantel-Haenszel methods. RESULTS: There were 23 (49%) men and 24 (51%) women randomized during a 6-month period. Of the patients 24 (51%) were randomized to global therapeutic massage, 23 (49%) to myofascial physical therapy and 44 (94%) completed the study. Therapist adherence to the treatment protocols was excellent. The global response assessment response rate of 57% in the myofascial physical therapy group was significantly higher than the rate of 21% in the global therapeutic massage treatment group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We judged the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial of physical therapy methods and the preliminary findings of a beneficial effect of myofascial physical therapy warrants further study.