| Literature DB >> 27047560 |
Azizeh Farzinmehr1, Azar Moezy2, Jalil Koohpayehzadeh3, Maryam Kashanian4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether Whole Body Vibration Training (WBVT) is effective at improving pelvic floor muscles strength in women with Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI).Entities:
Keywords: Pelvic Floor Muscle Training; RCT; Stress Urinary Incontinence; Whole Body Vibration Training
Year: 2015 PMID: 27047560 PMCID: PMC4818376
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Family Reprod Health ISSN: 1735-9392
Figure1Study profile for participants in WBVT and PFMT groups
Characteristic of the WBVT program
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| 1 | 30 | 30 | low | 60 | static | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 2 | 30 | 30 | low | 60 | Static | 5.5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 3 | 30 | 30 | low | 60 | Static & dynamic | 6.5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 4 | 30 | 35 | low | 50 | Static & dynamic | 8 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| 5 | 45 | 35 | low | 50 | Static & dynamic | 12 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| 6 | 45 | 35 | low | 50 | Static & dynamic | 12 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| 7 | 45 | 40 | high | 40 | Static & dynamic | 13.5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 8 | 45 | 40 | high | 40 | Static & dynamic | 15 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 9 | 45 | 40 | high | 40 | Static & dynamic | 15 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 10 | 60 | 40 | high | 30 | Static & dynamic | 16 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 11 | 60 | 50 | high | 30 | Static & dynamic | 16 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 12 | 60 | 50 | high | 30 | Static & dynamic | 16 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
a: Static position, sitting with hip joints abduction and feet out of platform; b: Static position , sitting with hip joints adduction and feet out of platform; c: Static position, sitting with hip joints abduction and feet out of platform while patient tries to contract her hip adductors statically; d: Static position, sitting cross-legged; e: Static position, sitting cross-legged while patient tries to press her buttock to vibration platform.; f: Dynamic position, sitting with hip joints abduction and feet out of platform while patient tries to bend successively hip joints (first right and then left hip); g: Dynamic position, sitting with hip joints adduction and feet out of platform while patients try to pull her knees into the abdomen; h: Dynamic position, sitting with hip joints adduction and feet out of platform, while patient keeps her arms crossed on the chest and bends her trunk forward and backward; i: Dynamic position, sitting with hip joints adduction and feet out of platform, while patient keeps her arms crossed on the chest and bends her trunk to the sides.
Amplitude: High = 5 mm, Low = 2.5 mm;
Exercises:
Training Effect within Groups
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| WBVT group | I-QOL1 | 43.52 ± 26.64 | 64.02 ± 26.5 | 63.38 + 26.41 | 0.0001 |
| ALB 2 | 40.33 ± 23.68 | 59.02 ± 27.35 | 59.32 + 25.75 | 0.0001 | |
| PS3 | 51 ± 31.9 | 71.68 ± 26.34 | 70.89 + 26.93 | 0.0001 | |
| SE4 | 34.09 ± 30.53 | 58.33 ± 30.6 | 56.47 + 31.9 | 0.0001 | |
| PFM strength5 | 2.45 ± 0.9 | 4.10 ± 0.7 | 3.94 + 0.89 | 0.0001 | |
| VAS (0-10)6 | 7.95 ± 1.9 | 4.14 ± 1.9 | 3.53 + 1.87 | 0.0001 | |
| PFMT group | I-QOL | 56.66 + 22.57 | 74.47 + 16.71 | 75.21 + 19.04 | 0.0001 |
| ALB | 50.38 + 21.11 | 64.64 + 17.61 | 71.21 + 19.22 | 0.0001 | |
| PS | 67.92 + 24.92 | 83.95 + 17.84 | 83.03 + 18.21 | 0.0001 | |
| SE | 46.45 + 29.61 | 69.31 + 23.1 | 67.63 + 26.94 | 0.0001 | |
| PFM strength | 2.66 + 0.96 | 4.18 + 0.85 | 4.26 + 0.80 | 0.0001 | |
| VAS (0-10) | 7.42 + 1.64 | 3.05 + 1.46 | 3.11 + 2.40 | 0.0001 |
1-I-QOL: Incontinence quality of life; 2-ALB: Avoidence and limiting behavior; 3-PS: Psychosocial impacts; 4-SE: Social embarrassment; 5-PFM Strength: Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength; 6-VAS: Visual analog scale
Significant difference between pre test and post test values, p ≤ 0.05
Comparison between groups
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| I-QOL | 21.72 ± 17.3 | 18.75 ± 13.9 | 0.538 |
| ALB | 19.44 ± 20.6 | 14.92 ± 14.5 | 0.411 |
| PS | 21.94 ± 18.1 | 17.68 ± 13.1 | 0.382 |
| SE | 26.1 ± 19.8 | 22.95 ± 23.9 | 0.633 |
| Strength | 1.57 ± 0.8 | 1.54 ± 0.5 | 0.905 |
| VAS (0-10) | -3.9 ± 2.02 | -4.36 ± 2.01 | 0.460 |
Comparison between training groups after 3 month follow up
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| IQOL | 18.68 ± 16.94 | 23.07 ± 14.98 | 0.852 |
| ALB | 16.68 ± 22.83 | 25.16 ± 16.32 | 0.216 |
| PS | 19.43 ± 18.78 | 20.62 ± 16.85 | 0.477 |
| SE | 22.05 ± 18.20 | 24.21 ± 23.28 | 0.200 |
| Strength | 1.52 ± 1.06 | 1.68 ± 0.58 | 0.025 |
| VAS (0-10) | -4.29 ± 2.71 | -4.26 ± 2.49 | 0.530 |