Adriane Bertotto1,2, Renata Schvartzman1, Silvana Uchôa3, Maria Celeste Osório Wender1,4. 1. Graduate Program in Medical Sciences, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. 2. Departament of Physical Therapy, Centro Universitário La Salle, Canoas, RS, Brazil. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Católica de Pernambuco (UNICAP), Recife, PE, Brazil. 4. Gynecology Service-Menopause Clinic, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the efficacy of pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) with and without electromyographic biofeedback (BF) in increasing muscle strength, improving myoelectric activity, and improving pre-contraction and quality of life in postmenopausal women with stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of 49 postmenopausal women with stress urinary incontinence. Participants were allocated across three groups: control, PFME alone, and PFME + BF. Forty-five women completed the study (14 control, 15 PFME, 16 PFME + BF; mean age 58.26 years). Outcome assessment was carried out using digital palpation (modified Oxford grading scale), electromyography, and the International Consultation Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) quality of life instrument. The treatment protocol consisted of eight twice-weekly, 20-min one-on-one sessions. Controls were assessed only at baseline and after 1 month. RESULTS: The PFME and PFME + BF groups exhibited significant increases in muscle strength (Oxford scale) (P < 0.0001), precontraction while coughing (P < 0.0001), maximum voluntary contraction, duration of endurance contraction, and ICIQ-SF scores (P < 0.0001). PFME + BF was associated with significantly superior improvement of muscle strength, precontraction while coughing, maximum voluntary contraction, and duration of endurance contraction as compared to PFME alone (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that pelvic floor muscle training, with and without biofeedback, is associated with increased muscle strength, myoelectric activity, precontraction of pelvic floor muscles, and improved quality of life in postmenopausal women with stress urinary incontinence.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To compare the efficacy of pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) with and without electromyographic biofeedback (BF) in increasing muscle strength, improving myoelectric activity, and improving pre-contraction and quality of life in postmenopausal women with stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial of 49 postmenopausal women with stress urinary incontinence. Participants were allocated across three groups: control, PFME alone, and PFME + BF. Forty-five women completed the study (14 control, 15 PFME, 16 PFME + BF; mean age 58.26 years). Outcome assessment was carried out using digital palpation (modified Oxford grading scale), electromyography, and the International Consultation Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) quality of life instrument. The treatment protocol consisted of eight twice-weekly, 20-min one-on-one sessions. Controls were assessed only at baseline and after 1 month. RESULTS: The PFME and PFME + BF groups exhibited significant increases in muscle strength (Oxford scale) (P < 0.0001), precontraction while coughing (P < 0.0001), maximum voluntary contraction, duration of endurance contraction, and ICIQ-SF scores (P < 0.0001). PFME + BF was associated with significantly superior improvement of muscle strength, precontraction while coughing, maximum voluntary contraction, and duration of endurance contraction as compared to PFME alone (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that pelvic floor muscle training, with and without biofeedback, is associated with increased muscle strength, myoelectric activity, precontraction of pelvic floor muscles, and improved quality of life in postmenopausal women with stress urinary incontinence.
Authors: Suzanne Hagen; Carol Bugge; Sarah G Dean; Andrew Elders; Jean Hay-Smith; Mary Kilonzo; Doreen McClurg; Mohamed Abdel-Fattah; Wael Agur; Federico Andreis; Joanne Booth; Maria Dimitrova; Nicola Gillespie; Cathryn Glazener; Aileen Grant; Karen L Guerrero; Lorna Henderson; Marija Kovandzic; Alison McDonald; John Norrie; Nicole Sergenson; Susan Stratton; Anne Taylor; Louise R Williams Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Janis M Miller; Kieran M Hawthorne; Lee Park; Margaret Tolbert; Katie Bies; Caroline Garcia; Ruta Misiunas; William Newhouse; Abigail R Smith Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Ron J Jankowski; Le Mai Tu; Christopher Carlson; Magali Robert; Kevin Carlson; David Quinlan; Andreas Eisenhardt; Min Chen; Scott Snyder; Ryan Pruchnic; Michael Chancellor; Roger Dmochowski; Melissa R Kaufman; Lesley Carr Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Giselle Notini Arcanjo; Juliana Lerche Vieira Rocha Pires; Maria Edna Mateus Jacinto; Josué Magalhães Colares; Lurdyanne Maria Cavalcante Belo; Pedro Olavo de Paula Lima; José Vilaça-Alves Journal: J Chiropr Med Date: 2022-04-21