Glavind et al.3030 Glavind K, Nøhr SB, Walter S. Biofeedback and physiotherapy versus physiotherapy alone in the treatment of genuine stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1996; 7(6):339-43.
|
G1: SEPFM + biofeedbackG2: SEPFM |
Mild to severe |
Pad test 1h (g) |
G1: 9.0 (5-22); G2: 12.8 (9-44) |
G1: 0.8 (0-4);G2: 10.0 (2-27) |
|
Padtest≤ 1 g |
G1: 58%G2: 20% |
Combined treatment of biofeedback with SEPFM showed a significant reduction of urinary loss compared to SEPFM alone. |
Arvonen et al.2929 Arvonen T, Fianu-Jonasson A, Tyni-Lenné R. Effectiveness of two conservative modes of physical therapy in women with urinary stress incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2001; 20(5):591-9.
|
G1: SEPFMG2: Vaginal cones |
NR |
Padtest 1h (g) |
G1: 20; G2: 30 |
G1: 5; G2: 1 |
p=0.03 |
Padtest˂ 2 g |
G1: 26%G2: 50% |
Treatment with vaginal cones has significantly reduced the amount of urinary loss compared to SEPFM. |
Digital palpation (0-5) |
G1: 3; G2: 3 |
G1: 3; G2: 4 |
p=0.05 |
Subjective assessment of cure (0-100%) |
NR |
|
|
Aksac et al.1919 Aksac B, Aki S, Karan A, Yalcin O, Isikoglu M, Eskiyurt N. Biofeedback and pelvic floor exercises for the rehabilitation of urinary stress incontinence. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2003; 56(1):23-7.
|
G1: SEPFM via digital palpationG2: SEPFM via biofeedbackG3: no treatment |
Mild and moderate |
Padtest 1h (g) |
G1: 19.9±2.5; G2: 20.5±0.7; G3: 29.1±3.2 |
G1: 2.1±0.4; G2: 1.2±0.2; G3: 28.2±3.7 |
|
|
G1: 75%G2: 80%G3: 0% |
SEPFM combined with digital palpation or biofeedback are effective compared to the untreated group. |
Perineometry (cmH2O) |
G1: 20.3±6.2; G2: 19.1±4.8; G3: 18.7±4.9 |
G1: 37.5±8.7; G2: 50.0 ±11.5;G3: 20.0±3.9 |
p˂0.001 |
Digital palpation/Oxford scale (0-5) |
G1: 3.5±0.5; G2: 3.3±0.4; G3: 3.3±0.4 |
G1: 4.8±0.4; G2: 4.9±0.2; G3: 3.3±0.6 |
|
Subjective assessment – VAS (0-10 points) |
NA |
G1: 7.5±1.2; G2: 8.1±0.8; G3: 3.6±0.6 |
|
Zanetti et al.1818 Zanetti MRD, Castro RDA, Rotta AL, Santos PD, Sartori M, Girão MJBC. Impact of supervised physiotherapeutic pelvic floor exercises for treating female stress urinary incontinence. São Paulo Med J. 2007; 125(5):265-9.
|
G1: Supervised SEPFMG2: Unsupervised SEPFM |
NR |
Padtest 1h (g) |
G1: 20.1; G2: 24.7 |
G1: 3.2; G2: 15.0 |
p=0.002 |
Padtest˂ 2 g |
G1: 48%G2: 9.5% |
The supervised SEPFM group improved significantly compared to the unsupervised SEPFM group. |
QV-I-QoL |
G1: 69.0; G2: 82.0 |
G1: 89.0; G2: 79.0 |
p=0.046 |
Voiding diary |
G1: 7.0; G2: |
G1: 1.0; G2: 10.0 |
p<0.0002 |
Subjective assessment |
NA |
G1: 66.7%; G2: 23.8% |
|
Felicíssimo et al.3131 Felicíssimo M, Carneiro M, Saleme C, Pinto R, da Fonseca A, da Silva-Filho A. Intensive supervised versus unsupervised pelvic floor muscle training for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a randomized comparative trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21(7):835-40.
|
G1: Supervised SEPFMG2: Unsupervised SEPFM |
NR |
Padtest 24h |
G1: 4.5 (3.0-15.7); G2: 9.3 (3.3-36.1) |
G1: 3.2 (1.2-8.0); G2: 2.8 (1.5-8.5) |
p=0.78 |
Padtest˂ 2 g |
G1: 36.6%G2: 34.5% |
Supervised and unsupervised SEPFMs were equally effective, with prior teaching of the correct contraction of PFM. |
Digital palpation/Oxford scale (0-5) |
G1: 2.0 (2.0-3.0); G2: 2.0 (2.0-3.0) |
G1: 3.0 (3.0-4.0); G2: 3.0 (2.0-4.0) |
p=0.20 |
QV-ICIQ-SF (0-21) |
G1: 14.0 (9-16); G2: 14.0 (10-16) |
G1: 8.0 (6-12); G2: 8.0 (5-13) |
p=0.76 |
Subjective assessment of cure (0-100%) |
NA |
G1: 69%; G2: 70% |
|
Sriboonreung et al.2828 Sriboonreung T, Wongtra-ngan S, Eungpinichpong W, Laopaiboon M. Effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in incontinent women at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2011; 94(1):1-7.
|
G1: Daily SEPFMG2: SEPFM, three times weeklyG3: SEPFM + abdominal muscle strength, three times weekly |
NR |
Padtest 1h (g) |
G1: 4.0±0.9; G2: 4.0±1.5; G3: 4.7±1.6 |
G1: 1.4±0.7; G2: 1.7±0.7;G3: 4.7±1.6 |
p>0.05 |
Padtest
|
G1: 20%G2: 21.2%G3: 28.6% |
Daily SEPFM significantly increased PFM strength compared to the three times weekly frequency group and the abdominal training group. However, all groups reduced the amount of urine leakage. |
Perineometry(cmH2O) |
G1: 29.0±10.2; G2: 28.7±13.1; G3: 29.0±7.4 |
G1: 47.4±9.6; G2: 42.6±12.4;G3: 46.3±8.2 |
p<0.001 |
Subjective assessment of cure (0-100%) |
NA |
G1: 75%; G2: 68.4%; G3: 66.7% |
|
Kamel et al.2727 Kamel DM, Thabet AA, Tantawy SA, Radwan MM. Effect of abdominal versus pelvic floor muscle exercises in obese Egyptian women with mild stress urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2013; 31(1):12-8.
|
G1: Abdominal muscle strengthG2: SEPFM |
Mild |
Perineometry (cmH2O) |
G1: 49.9±4.85; G2: 50.3±6.06 |
G1: 57.73±6.39; G2: 52.60±7.60 |
p>0.05 |
NR |
NR |
Abdominal training significantly increased PFM strength compared to SEPFM. |
Valsalva LPP (cmH2O) |
G1: 80.00±5.52; G2: 78.00±4.49 |
G1: 92.80±13.57; G2: 87.33±9.07 |
p=0.058 |
NR |
NR |