The use of the bladder neck support prosthesis in combined genuine stress incontinence and detrusor instability

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management, particularly when a woman does not want surgery or when she is considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether mechanical devices are useful in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.

SEARCH METHODS

For this second update we searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 21 August 2014), EMBASE (January 1947 to 2014 Week 34), CINAHL (January 1982 to 25 August 2014), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined by symptom, sign or urodynamic diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.3).

MAIN RESULTS

One new trial was identified and included in this update bringing the total to eight trials involving 787 women. Three small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Four trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. One trial compared three groups: a mechanical device alone, behavioural therapy (pelvic floor muscle training) alone and behavioural therapy combined with a mechanical device. While at three months there were more withdrawals from the device-only group, at 12 months differences between the groups were not sustained on any measure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and large well-conducted trials are required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and little evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

ncontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management, particularly when a woman does not want surgery or when she is considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 23 June 2010), EMBASE (January 1947 to 2010 Week 24), CINAHL (January 1982 to 11 June 2010) and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined by symptom, sign or urodynamic diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 5.0.25).

MAIN RESULTS

One new trial was identified and included in this update bringing the total to seven trials involving 732 women. Two small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Four trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. One new trial compared three groups: a mechanical device alone, behavioural therapy (pelvic floor muscle training) alone and behavioural therapy combined with a mechanical device. While at three months, there were more withdrawals from the device-only group, at 12 months group differences between the groups were not sustained on any measure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and large well-conducted trials are required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and little evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.

A contextual model of pelvic floor muscle defects in female stress urinary incontinence: a rationale for physiotherapy treatment

On the basis of the current literature, we describe a model of structural defects in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and how physiotherapy for SUI can affect each component of the model with reference to the relevant anatomy and pathophysiology. This model of SUI involves four primary structural defects: (1) increased tonic stress on the pelvic fascia due to pelvic floor muscle (PFM) tears; (2) fascial tearing due to PFM denervation; (3) fascial weakness resulting from tears; and (4) inefficient PFM contraction due to altered motor control. These four components interact to collectively weaken urethral closure and allow urine leakage under conditions of increased intra-abdominal pressure. Physiotherapy can strengthen the PFM and may improve the efficiency and/or timing of PFM contractions to reduce or eliminate SUI. It is worthwhile for motivated women with SUI to try PFM exercise therapy as a first approach to treatment. Women need to be individually instructed to ensure that they correctly perform PFM contractions and that they can monitor their own performance. Long-term, high-intensity exercise, including home exercise, is necessary to achieve maximum effect. Under these conditions the improvement in urinary continence with PFM exercise can be complete and enduring.

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management. The latter more so when a person did not want surgery or when considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (7 December 2005). The register contains trials identified from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined either by symptom classification or by urodynamic diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and methodological quality and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 4.2).

MAIN RESULTS

There were six trials involving a total of 286 women. Two small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Five trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. There were no trials comparing a mechanical device with another type of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and a large well-conducted trial is required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and no evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.

Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women

BACKGROUND

Incontinence can have a devastating effect on the lives of sufferers with significant economic implications. Non-surgical treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training and the use of mechanical devices are usually the first line of management. The latter more so when a person did not want surgery or when considered unfit for surgery. Mechanical devices are inexpensive and do not compromise future surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (7 December 2005). The register contains trials identified from MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of mechanical devices in the management of adult female urinary incontinence determined either by symptom classification or by urodynamic diagnosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers assessed the identified studies for eligibility and methodological quality and independently extracted data from the included studies. Data analysis was performed using RevMan software (version 4.2).

MAIN RESULTS

There were six trials involving a total of 286 women. Two small trials compared a mechanical device with no treatment and although they suggested that use of a mechanical device might be better than no treatment, the evidence for this was inconclusive. Five trials compared one mechanical device with another. Quantitative synthesis of data from these trials was not possible because different mechanical devices were compared in each trial using different outcome measures. Data from the individual trials showed no clear difference between devices, but with wide confidence intervals. There were no trials comparing a mechanical device with another type of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The place of mechanical devices in the management of urinary incontinence remains in question. Currently there is little evidence from controlled trials on which to judge whether their use is better than no treatment and a large well-conducted trial is required for clarification. There was also insufficient evidence in favour of one device over another and no evidence to compare mechanical devices with other forms of treatment.

Conservative management for urinary incontinence

Gynaecologists have become increasingly aware of the need to offer conservative therapy for genuine stress incontinence. There is good objective evidence from randomized controlled trials to support the use of supervised pelvic floor exercises. The efficacy of biofeedback therapy, vaginal cone weights and electrostimulation therapy is variable and requires further study to identify those women who will benefit the most. The mainstay of therapy for detrusor instability/sensory urgency remains bladder training, which has proven objective efficacy, but new treatments such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) offer promise. Finally, for certain groups of women with mixed stress and urge leak, a new range of vaginal and urethral devices provide useful additional options. The specific requirements for future research are discussed.

An open study of the bladder neck support prosthesis in genuine stress incontinence

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of unselected women with genuine stress incontinence in whom a bladder neck support prosthesis could be fitted successfully by three gynaecologists with no prior knowledge of the device, and to measure efficacy of the device.

DESIGN

Prospective interventional study.

SETTING

Two metropolitan urodynamic units.

SAMPLE

Eighty women with genuine stress incontinence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Average number of leaks per day on a frequency volume chart, average number of pads worn per day, urine loss on a one-hour pad test, and urine flow rate.

RESULTS

Of the 80 recruits, 11 had exclusion criteria and four could not be fitted at the first visit. Of 65 participants, 39 (58%) withdrew from the study before week four. In 20 of 39 women (51%) post-surgical scarring made fitting difficult, and six (15%) withdrew for unrelated personal or medical reasons. In five women (13%) the device was never effective; six withdrew because of adverse events and two required devices that were larger or smaller than those presently available. Thus 38 of 65 participants (58%) could be fitted by the three gynaecologists. Of 26 women who wore the device for four weeks, median leaks per day fell from 2.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 1.9-4.6) to 1.0 (IQR 0-2); median number of pads per day fell from 1.5 (IQR 0.5-3) to 0 (IQR 0-1); and median pad test loss fell from 19 g/h (IQR 8-49) to 2 g/h (IQR 0-8). Sixteen of these 26 patients (62%) achieved objective success, six (23%) were socially continent, one failed to respond and three declined to complete all outcome measures. Urine flow rates revealed no evidence of outflow obstruction. At the sixth month, 18 of 26 patients (69%) were wearing the device successfully; 15 of these women continued to the 12th month, and all but one were objectively dry.

CONCLUSIONS

The bladder neck support prosthesis is a useful addition to the range of treatments available for the management of genuine stress incontinence, but may be difficult to fit in women who are oestrogen-deprived or have undergone multiple surgical procedures. The demands of the trial protocol were found to be onerous by frail elderly women.