Jeyaseelan SM, Haslam EJ, Winstanley J, Roe BH, Oldham JA. An evaluation of a new pattern of electrical stimulation as a treatment for urinary stress incontinence: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.
Clin Rehabil 2000;
14:631-40. [PMID:
11128739 DOI:
10.1191/0269215500cr372oa]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate a new pattern of electrical of electrical stimulation as a treatment for stress incontinence.
DESIGN
A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.
SETTING
The study took place on three clinical sites.
SUBJECTS
Patients (n = 27) with urodynamically proven stress incontinence recruited via consultant referral.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups: the new pattern of stimulation or sham stimulation.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Patients were assessed pre, mid and post treatment using: perineometry, digital assessment and pad testing. The following were only used pre and post treatment: seven-day frequency/volume chart, SF-36, the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory.
RESULTS
No significant between-group differences were highlighted except when quality of life was assessed with the Urogenital Distress Inventory (p = 0.01). A significant reduction in scores was observed in the stimulation group (p = 0.03) However, improvements were seen in both the strength and endurance characteristics of the pelvic floor musculature, although these changes were not translated into a reduction in symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Although promising, the improvement in pelvic floor function did not result in a reduction in symptoms in all patients. Further research is required to investigate the effects of the new stimulation in combination with pelvic floor exercises and to compare the new stimulation pattern with existing forms of electrical stimulation.
Collapse