Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Kari Bø a Norwegian
Centre for Physiotherapy Research and Norwegian University of Sport and
Physical Education, PO Box 4014, Ullevål Stadion, 0806 Oslo, Norway, b National
Hospital of Norway, Oslo, c Norwegian University of Sport and Physical
Education, Oslo
Correspondence to: Professor Bø
karib{at}brage.idrettshs.no
Objective:
To compare the effect of pelvic floor
exercises, electrical stimulation, vaginal cones, and no treatment
for genuine stress incontinence.
Design:
Stratified, single blind, randomised
controlled trial.
Setting:
Multicentre.
Participants:
107 women with clinically and
urodynamically proved genuine stress incontinence. Mean (range) age was
49.5 (24-70) years, and mean (range) duration of symptoms 10.8 (1-45) years.
Interventions:
Pelvic floor exercise (n=25)
comprised 8-12 contractions 3 times a day and exercise in groups with
skilled physical therapists once a week. The electrical stimulation
group (n=25) used vaginal intermittent stimulation with the MS 106 Twin at 50 Hz 30 minutes a day. The vaginal cones group (n=27) used cones for 20 minutes a day. The untreated control group (n=30) was
offered the use of a continence guard. Muscle strength was measured by
vaginal squeeze pressure once a month.
Main outcome measures:
Pad test with standardised
bladder volume, and self report of severity.
Results:
Improvement in muscle strength was
significantly greater (P=0.03) after pelvic floor exercises (11.0 cm
H2O (95% confidence interval 7.7 to 14.3) before
v 19.2 cm H2O (15.3 to 23.1) after) than
either electrical stimulation (14.8 cm H2O (10.9 to 18.7)
v 18.6 cm H2O (13.3 to 23.9)) or vaginal
cones (11.8 cm H2O (8.5 to 15.1) v 15.4 cm
H2O (11.1 to 19.7)). Reduction in leakage on pad test was
greater in the exercise group (
30.2 g;
43.3 to 16.9) than in the
electrical stimulation group (
7.4 g;
20.9 to 6.1) and the
vaginal cones group (
14.7 g;
27.6 to
1.8). On completion of
the trial one participant in the control group, 14 in the pelvic floor
exercise group, three in the electrical stimulation group, and two in
the vaginal cones group no longer considered themselves as having a problem.
Conclusion:
Training of the pelvic floor muscles is
superior to electrical stimulation and vaginal cones in the treatment
of genuine stress incontinence.
Key messages
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+