Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Vaginal electrical stimulation of the pelvic floor: a randomized feasibility study in urinary incontinent elderly women
Spruijt J, Vierhout M, Verstraeten R, Janssens J, Burger C
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2003 Nov;82(11):1043-1048
clinical trial
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness of intravaginal electrical stimulation (ES) of the pelvic floor for urinary incontinence in elderly women, and to determine whether ES of the pelvic floor is a preferable treatment for urinary incontinence in elderly women. METHODS: Postmenopausal women (age 65 years or older) were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial and underwent every-other-day ES of the pelvic floor, or a daily Kegel exercise (KE) program. Objective outcome variables were: (1) Urinary leakage (during a standardized PAD test), (2) pelvic muscle strength (measured by a perineometer), and (3) detrusor instability (on ambulant urodynamic registration). Subjective outcome variables were women's subjective assessment of change in urinary symptoms based on the PRAFAB score. Twenty-four women treated with ES and 11 women treated with Kegel exercises completed the 8-week study program. The Chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: No significant improvement in objective outcome variables was observed in the population treated with ES compared with the population treated with KE (with 29.2% versus 36.4% of the women showing objective improvement in measured urinary leakage). Neither was subjective improvement significant, with 29.2% versus 27.3% of the women reporting improvement in the amount of urinary leakage. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of enrolled women was very small this study shows that: (1) Treating elderly women with vaginal ES of the pelvic floor has a high physical and emotional cost for the individual. (2) The effectiveness of ES of the pelvic floor in urinary incontinent elderly women is low. (3) There is no great discrepancy between objective amelioration (PAD test) and subjective amelioration (PRAFAB score/quantity of urinary leakage), if the objective improvement is adequately defined. (4) It is not reasonable to advise elderly women with urinary incontinence to undertake this treatment procedure. The effectiveness of treatment does not compensate for the long-lasting and intense treatment protocol. (5) We terminated this study because of the negative outcome with ES.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help