Aging and the Pelvic Floor

Women and healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes and practice related to pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse: A Systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify the knowledge, attitudes and practice of women and healthcare professionals in relation to pessary use for POP.

METHOD

This systematic review was carried out in agreement with PRISMA recommendations. PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, CAPES Periodicals and CINAHL databases were searched for studies without date or language limitations. Search strategies were developed for identifying studies examining knowledge, attitudes and practice toward vaginal pessaries use. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify eligible studies. Data extraction was performed independently in duplicate into a standardized form. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews [CRD42018114236].

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. Knowledge and practice were the main domains investigated among patients and professionals, respectively. The results demonstrated poor patient knowledge; however, in urogynecologic patients, knowledge was better. Previous consultation with a Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery specialist (p = .001) and a higher level of education (p = .006) were associated with improved knowledge of pessary use. Fear of vaginal discharge, irritation, bleeding, and pain were factors that supported the decision not to use a pessary. Previous consultation with a generalist gynecologist (p = .03)and a lower level of education (p = .03) predicted aversion to pessary use. Providers demonstrated adequate knowledge and recommended pessary in 86.4% to 98.0% of cases. Having specialist and pessary management training were some factors that influenced a better attitude towards pessaries among health professionals.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge, attitudes and practice of women and health care providers about pessary use are seldom investigated. Developing a psychometrically valid instrument for assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practice is desirable to examine the complex interactions between these three constructs, expose barriers to pessary care, and develop targeted educational interventions.

Effect of intravaginal vibratory versus electric stimulation on the pelvic floor muscles: A randomized clinical trial

Introduction

According to the International Urogynecological Association and International Continence Society people with normal pelvic floor muscle function should have the ability to voluntarily and involuntarily contract and relax these muscles. However, many women are unaware of their pelvic floor, and it is estimated that about 30–50% do not know how to actively contract these muscles. Within this context, therapeutic strategies to improve pelvic floor muscle strength and function are particularly relevant.

Aims

To compare the use of an intravaginal vibratory stimulus (IVVS) versus intravaginal electrical stimulation (IVES) on pelvic floor muscle functionality in women with pelvic floor dysfunctions who cannot voluntarily contract these muscles.

Materials and methods

Randomized clinical trial performed at a tertiary care hospital from June 2016 to September 2017. The sample comprised adult women with pelvic floor dysfunction who were unable to contract their pelvic floor muscles voluntarily. Women with latex allergy or other allergies in the pelvic region, vaginal or urinary tract infection, gynecological cancer, significant pain on palpation, or pelvic floor training over the preceding 6 months were excluded. After baseline assessment, women that met the inclusion criteria were randomized to receive once-weekly 20-minute sessions of IVVS or IVES for 6 weeks.

Results

Twenty-one women were randomly assigned to each group; 18 completed the IVVS and 17 completed the IVES protocols. The IVVS group presented a significant increase in PFM strength in relation to the IVES group (p = 0.026). There was a significant interaction between time and type of intervention for the same variable (p = 0.008) in the IVVS group.

Conclusion

Both techniques were beneficial, but IVVS was significantly superior to IVES in improving pevic floor muscle strength. Additional studies are warranted to consolidate the utility of IVVS as a treatment modality for pelvic floor dysfunction.