Therapeutic effects of biofeedback therapy of perineal surface on stress urinary incontinence in elderly women
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-9026.2020.07.023
- VernacularTitle:经会阴表面肌电位生物反馈法治疗老年女性压力性尿失禁的临床疗效
- Author:
Min LI
1
;
Xiaomei WU
;
Qiubo LYU
;
Tianzi GAI
;
Qing FENG
;
Aiming LYU
;
Wenhui DENG
Author Information
1. 北京医院妇产科 国家老年医学中心 中国医学科学院老年医学研究院 100730
- From:
Chinese Journal of Geriatrics
2020;39(7):829-833
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the therapeutic effects of biofeedback therapy of perineal surface on stress urinary incontinence(SUI) in elderly women.Methods:A total of 87 elderly women with SUI treated at the outpatient clinics of Beijing Hospital and Yunnan First People's Hospital between January 2018 and December 2019 were recruited in this prospective cohort study.All participants were therapeutically divided into the perineal BF group(n=53)and the intravaginal BF group(n=34), based on the voluntary selection.In the intravaginal BF group, 3/34 cases dropped out of the study, and finally in 31 cases the treatment was completed.All patients were treated with biofeedback for 8 weeks with twice treatment per week.The quality of life was assessed by the incontinence impact questionnaire scores.Patients underwent the 1-hour pad-weighing test, pelvic floor muscle assessment and quality of life assessment by incontinence impact questionnaire(ⅡQ-7)scores before and after treatment.The effective rate of treatment, adverse reactions and treatment satisfaction scores were compared between the two groups.Results:The urine leakage and scores of ⅡQ-7 questionnaire were significantly improved after versus before 8 weeks of treatment in the perineal BF group[(4.65±2.33) g vs.(11.02±4.85) g, (7.96±5.11) scores vs.(4.34±2.66) scores, t=8.62 and 4.58, P<0.001], and in the intravaginal BF group[(3.85±1.89) g vs.(12.43±3.96) g, (3.81±1.23) scores vs.(8.29±5.01) scores, t=10.89 and 4.84, P<0.001]. Compared with before treatment, the grading of pelvic floor muscle strength was improved after treatment, but had no significant difference in the perineal BF group(3.93±2.77 vs.2.98±2.10, t=1.99, P=0.056)and in the intravaginal BF group(4.51±3.38 vs.3.07±2.02, t=2.04, P=0.051). There was no significant difference in the urine leakage, grading of pelvic floor muscle strength and scores of ⅡQ-7 questionnaire between two groups( P>0.05). The effective rate of treatment had no significant difference between the perineal and intravaginal BF groups(81.13% or 43/53 vs.83.87% or 26/31, χ2=0.10, P=0.750). The incidences of adverse effects were higher(20.59% or 7/34 vs.1.89% or 1/53, χ2=8.68, P=0.003)and the comfort levels during treatment assessed by visual analog scale(VAS)scores were lower in the intravaginal BF group than in the perineal BF group[(8.11±2.93) scores vs.(9.88±3.84) scores, t=2.95, P=0.004]. The main adverse effects included pain or discomfort, vaginal bleeding and increased vaginal discharge in the intrasvaginal BF treatment group. Conclusions:The perineal BF method is as effective as intravaginal BF in female stress urinary incontinencetreatmentin elderly women, and has fewer adverse effects.
