Luciana Laureano Paiva1, Lia Ferla2, Caroline Darski3, Bruna Maciel Catarino1, José Geraldo Lopes Ramos3. 1. Curso de Fisioterapia da Escola de Educação Física, Fisioterapia e Dança da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brasil. 2. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde: Ginecologia e Obstetrícia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Franklin, 200/408, Itú Sabará, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil. lyaferla@hotmail.com. 3. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciências da Saúde: Ginecologia e Obstetrícia da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Franklin, 200/408, Itú Sabará, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Urinary Incontinence (UI) in women is a condition that becomes more common with age. Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is recommended as a first option of treatment for women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), mixed urinary incontinence (MUI), and for some with symptoms of urge urinary incontinence (UUI). PFMT can be performed in groups, individually, and at home, and there is no consensus as to which of the approaches is more efficient for the conservative treatment of UI. The objective was to perform a systematic review comparing the effects of group PFMT vs individual or home training in the treatment of women with UI. METHODS: Cochrane's recommendations for systematic reviews were followed. The inclusion criteria were that the studies had been carried out in adult women who suffered from UI and who underwent PFMT in a group. RESULTS: Ten studies that fit the criteria previously mentioned were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that there was no difference when comparing PFMT in groups vs individual PFMT. However, when comparing PFMT in groups vs PFMT at home, the group intervention was more efficient in the treatment of UI. CONCLUSION: PFMT is an efficient technique for the improvement of the symptoms of female UI. When PFMT was supervised by a physiotherapist, no significant difference was noted when comparing group with individual approaches.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Urinary Incontinence (UI) in women is a condition that becomes more common with age. Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is recommended as a first option of treatment for women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), mixed urinary incontinence (MUI), and for some with symptoms of urge urinary incontinence (UUI). PFMT can be performed in groups, individually, and at home, and there is no consensus as to which of the approaches is more efficient for the conservative treatment of UI. The objective was to perform a systematic review comparing the effects of group PFMT vs individual or home training in the treatment of women with UI. METHODS: Cochrane's recommendations for systematic reviews were followed. The inclusion criteria were that the studies had been carried out in adult women who suffered from UI and who underwent PFMT in a group. RESULTS: Ten studies that fit the criteria previously mentioned were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that there was no difference when comparing PFMT in groups vs individual PFMT. However, when comparing PFMT in groups vs PFMT at home, the group intervention was more efficient in the treatment of UI. CONCLUSION: PFMT is an efficient technique for the improvement of the symptoms of female UI. When PFMT was supervised by a physiotherapist, no significant difference was noted when comparing group with individual approaches.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Carol Ewing Garber; Bryan Blissmer; Michael R Deschenes; Barry A Franklin; Michael J Lamonte; I-Min Lee; David C Nieman; David P Swain Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jane T Hein; Thomas M Rieck; Heather A Dunfee; Danielle P Johnson; Jennifer A Ferguson; Deborah J Rhodes Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 2.579