| Literature DB >> 31212987 |
María Zahara Pintos-Díaz1, Paula Parás-Bravo2,3, Cristina Alonso-Blanco4, César Fernández-de-Las-Peñas5, María Paz-Zulueta6,7, Mónica Cueli-Arce8, Domingo Palacios-Ceña9.
Abstract
Background: Urinary incontinence represents a complex problem which commonly affects women and influences their physical, mental and social wellbeing. The objective was to determine the effect of pelvic floor muscle training using a tampon as visual biofeedback.Entities:
Keywords: Tampon; biofeedback; muscle strength; pelvic floor; urinary incontinence
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31212987 PMCID: PMC6616577 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16122143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The veriprobe vaginal electrode and the NeuroTrac ETS stimulation device (source: author’s photograph).
Figure 2Electrode placement at the abdominal and sacral levels (source: author’s photograph).
Demographic and gynecological data.
| Mean (SD) | Women without UI | Women with UI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | ||||||
| Age, years | 20–34 | 47.3 (11) | 7 | 31.8% | 2 | 5.3% | 0.004 |
| 35–49 | 3 | 13.6% | 18 | 47.4% | |||
| 50–65 | 12 | 54.5% | 18 | 47.4% | |||
| Incontinence symptoms | Stress | . | . | 21 | 55.4% | ||
| Urgency | . | . | 6 | 15.8% | |||
| Mixed | . | . | 4 | 10.5% | |||
| Chronic urinary retention | . | . | 2 | 5.3% | |||
| Postpartum | . | . | 2 | 5.3% | |||
| DK/NR | . | . | 3 | 7.9% | |||
| BMI, kg/m2 | Underweight | 25 (4.7) | 1 | 4.5% | - | - | 0.446 |
| Normal weight | 13 | 59.1% | 20 | 52.3% | |||
| Overweight | 6 | 27.3% | 15 | 39.5% | |||
| Obesity | 1 | 4.5% | 3 | 7.9% | |||
| Educational level | Low | 13 | 59.1% | 19 | 50% | 0.79 | |
| Medium | 6 | 27.1% | 13 | 34.2% | |||
| High | 3 | 13.6% | 6 | 15.8% | |||
| Have you given birth? | No | 7 | 31.8% | 4 | 10.5% | 0.04 | |
| Yes | 15 | 68.2% | 34 | 89.5% | |||
| Number of births | 0 | 1.6 (1.1) | 7 | 31.8% | 4 | 10.5% | 0.071 |
| 1 | 4 | 18.2% | 11 | 29% | |||
| 2 | 7 | 31.8% | 19 | 50% | |||
| 3 | 2 | 9.1% | 4 | 10.5% | |||
| 4 or more | 2 | 9.1% | - | - | |||
| Episiotomy | No | - | - | 4 | 11.8% | 0.166 | |
| Yes | 15 | 100% | 30 | 88.2% | |||
| Do you think you have improved | No | 9 | 42.9% | 7 | 18.4% | 0.041 | |
| Yes | 12 | 54.5% | 31 | 81.6% | |||
| DK | 1 | 2.2% | - | - | |||
| Previously, did you exercise? | No | 12 | 54.5% | 18 | 47.4% | 0.592 | |
| Yes | 10 | 45.5% | 20 | 52.6% | |||
| Type of previous exercise | Pipistop | 2 | 20% | 4 | 20% | 0.622 | |
| PF contractions | 1 | 10% | 3 | 15% | |||
| Yoga | 1 | 10% | - | - | |||
| Hypopressive exercise | - | - | 1 | 5% | |||
| DK | 6 | 60% | 12 | 60% | |||
| Comparison with other previous methods | Better | 7 | 70% | 15 | 75% | ||
| The same | 2 | 20% | - | - | |||
| Worse | - | - | 1 | 5% | |||
| DK | 1 | 10% | 4 | 20% | |||
| Classification of the treatment time in the third session? | Too little | - | - | 7 | 18.4% | 0.107 | |
| Appropriate | 21 | 95.5% | 30 | 79% | |||
| A lot | 1 | 4.5% | 1 | 2.6% | |||
| Have your expectations been met? | No | 8 | 36.4% | 5 | 13.2% | 0.064 | |
| Yes | 12 | 54.5% | 26 | 68.4% | |||
| In part | - | - | 5 | 13.2% | |||
| DK | 2 | 9.1% | 2 | 5.3% | |||
* Chi-Squared Test; UI: Urinary incontinence; SD: Standard deviation; PF: pelvic floor; DK: Do not know.
Comparison between the initial and final assessment via the ANOVA test.
| Position | Mensuration | Women without UI | Women with UI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | Pre | Post | |||
| Supine position | Phasic mean b | 52.5 ± 34.6 | 50.3 ± 37.1 | 62.6 ± 38.5 | 59.6 ± 37.6 | 0.888 |
| Valid phasic contractions c | 59.8 ± 27.3 | 75.6 ± 16.7 | 52.1 ± 25.7 | 68.4 ± 22.6 | 0.95 | |
| Phasic synergy d | 5.1 ± 3.1 | 5.9 ± 3.6 | 6.3 ± 4.5 | 7.5 ± 5.6 | 0.336 | |
| Tonic mean e | 29.3 ± 17.3 | 35.2 ± 19.3 | 40.8 ± 24.8 | 47.1 ± 36.7 | 0.931 | |
| Tonic stability f | 62.4 ± 11.6 | 66.6 ± 9.7 | 59.5 ± 14.1 | 64.3 ± 11.9 | 0.863 | |
| Tonic base g | 7.9 ± 1.9 | 7.4 ± 1.4 | 8.3 ± 1.8 | 7.3 ± 1.8 | 0.425 | |
| Tonic synergy h | 3.6 ± 2.3 | 4.6 ± 3.3 | 5.6 ± 4.1 | 6.1 ± 3.8 | 0.701 | |
| Standing | Phasic mean b | 51.7 ± 32.3 | 48.9 ± 28.2 | 58.5 ± 32.1 | 47.7 ± 25.1 | 0.243 |
| Valid phasic contractions c | 52.7 ± 22.8 | 66.1 ± 23.2 | 48.5 ± 26.3 | 63.0 ± 26.6 | 0.864 | |
| Phasic synergy d | 3.9 ± 2.6 | 4.5 ± 2.7 | 4.3 ± 2.9 | 3.7 ± 2.5 | 0.157 | |
| Tonic mean e | 35.7 ± 20.7 | 37.8 ± 20.7 | 40.8 ± 24.3 | 35.7 ± 20.7 | 0.189 | |
| Tonic base g | 7.3 ± 1.7 | 7.2 ± 1.4 | 7.9 ± 1.3 | 7.4 ± 1.7 | 0.252 | |
| Tonic synergy h | 3.2 ± 1.8 | 3.5 ± 2.3 | 4.6 ± 4.9 | 3.4 ± 2.3 | 0.184 | |
| Impact on quality of life a | 5.6 ± 2.9 | 6.4 ± 2.6 | 6.1 ± 2.1 | 6.4 ± 2.3 | 0.456 | |
| Impact on quality of sexual relations a | 6.8 ± 1.4 | 7.2 ± 1.0 | 6.3 ± 2.5 | 6.6 ± 2.3 | 0.365 | |
| Motivation for participating in the study a | 8.4 ± 1.6 | 7.9 ± 2.1 | 8.8 ± 1.3 | 8.3 ± 2.0 | 0.957 | |
* Chi-Squared Test. PF Pelvic Floor; a Scale from 0 to 10; b Five series of ten phasic contractions, with ten seconds rest between series and without rest between phasic contractions. Each of these were assessed and afterwards the mean value was calculated; c A valid contraction has a base of less than one second width and needle peak; d Relation between the mean value of phasic contractions and the mean value of the abdominal contraction that the patient performs in response to the phasic contractions of the PF; e Five tonic contractions with a base of 10 s with 10 s rest between each of the tonic contractions; f Stability of the strength of the tonic contraction force; g Number of mean seconds duration of tonic contractions; h Relation between the mean value of tonic PF contractions and the mean abdominal value.