Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Pelvic floor exercises versus vaginal weight cones in genuine stress incontinence.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998 Mar; 77(1):89-93.EJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare pelvic floor exercises and vaginal weight cones in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

Sixty ambulatory and fit white women (mean age 56 years) with urinary stress incontinence, treated by a single physiotherapist as outpatients during twelve weeks. Thirty women were allocated to a weekly session of pelvic floor exercises. Thirty were allocated to using cones, they were seen every two weeks.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Objective: stress test, vaginal squeezing capacity. Subjective: urinary diary, visual analogue scales.

RESULTS

Characteristics of both study groups were comparable. Unfortunately, there was an early withdrawal of fourteen (47%) women in the group treated with cones, and none in the other group. Therefore the pelvic floor exercise group was compared not only with the group intended to be treated with cones, but also with the selected group that only received cone therapy. No statistically significantly differences in outcome measures were found between the groups: 53% in the group assigned to pelvic floor exercises and 57% into the group assigned to cones, of which 50% in the group actually treated with cones, considered themselves as cured or improved to a significant degree. Long-term follow-up was not possible as all cone users refused continued exercises with cones once the twelve weeks had ended.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic floor exercises and cones are equally effective in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Cones are cost and time saving. However, the low patient compliance with the cones importantly limits its clinical applicability, especially in the long run. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of cones.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Urogynaecology, A.Z. V.U.B., Brussels, Belgium.No affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

9550207

Citation

Cammu, H, and M Van Nylen. "Pelvic Floor Exercises Versus Vaginal Weight Cones in Genuine Stress Incontinence." European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, vol. 77, no. 1, 1998, pp. 89-93.
Cammu H, Van Nylen M. Pelvic floor exercises versus vaginal weight cones in genuine stress incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998;77(1):89-93.
Cammu, H., & Van Nylen, M. (1998). Pelvic floor exercises versus vaginal weight cones in genuine stress incontinence. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, 77(1), 89-93.
Cammu H, Van Nylen M. Pelvic Floor Exercises Versus Vaginal Weight Cones in Genuine Stress Incontinence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1998;77(1):89-93. PubMed PMID: 9550207.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Pelvic floor exercises versus vaginal weight cones in genuine stress incontinence. AU - Cammu,H, AU - Van Nylen,M, PY - 1998/4/29/pubmed PY - 1998/4/29/medline PY - 1998/4/29/entrez SP - 89 EP - 93 JF - European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology JO - Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol VL - 77 IS - 1 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To compare pelvic floor exercises and vaginal weight cones in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Sixty ambulatory and fit white women (mean age 56 years) with urinary stress incontinence, treated by a single physiotherapist as outpatients during twelve weeks. Thirty women were allocated to a weekly session of pelvic floor exercises. Thirty were allocated to using cones, they were seen every two weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Objective: stress test, vaginal squeezing capacity. Subjective: urinary diary, visual analogue scales. RESULTS: Characteristics of both study groups were comparable. Unfortunately, there was an early withdrawal of fourteen (47%) women in the group treated with cones, and none in the other group. Therefore the pelvic floor exercise group was compared not only with the group intended to be treated with cones, but also with the selected group that only received cone therapy. No statistically significantly differences in outcome measures were found between the groups: 53% in the group assigned to pelvic floor exercises and 57% into the group assigned to cones, of which 50% in the group actually treated with cones, considered themselves as cured or improved to a significant degree. Long-term follow-up was not possible as all cone users refused continued exercises with cones once the twelve weeks had ended. CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor exercises and cones are equally effective in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Cones are cost and time saving. However, the low patient compliance with the cones importantly limits its clinical applicability, especially in the long run. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of cones. SN - 0301-2115 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/9550207/Pelvic_floor_exercises_versus_vaginal_weight_cones_in_genuine_stress_incontinence_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301211597002376 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -