Efficacy of combined pelvic magnetic therapy and pelvic floor EMG biofeedback for perimenopausal pelvic floor dysfunction and its effects on bladder function and urodynamics
10.3760/cma.j.cn101721-20250402-00155
- VernacularTitle:盆底磁刺激联合盆底肌电生物反馈疗法对围绝经期PFD患者的效果
- Author:
Mina DENG
1
;
Yunyao RUAN
1
;
Meijiao WEN
1
;
Dongting XU
1
;
Jinfeng ZHANG
1
;
Meihua WU
1
Author Information
1. 广东省深圳市中西医结合医院妇科，深圳 518104
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Pelvic floor dysfunction;
Pelvic floor magnetic therapy;
Pelvic floor myoelectric biofeedback;
Perimenopause
- From:
Clinical Medicine of China
2025;41(5):372-378
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the efficacy of combined pelvic magnetic therapy and pelvic floor electromyographic (EMG) biofeedback therapy in perimenopausal women with pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD), and its effects on bladder function and urodynamic status.Methods:A total of 137 perimenopausal women with PFD treated at Shenzhen Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine between February 2022 and May 2024 were enrolled. They were randomly divided into a control group ( n=68) and a study group ( n=69) by random number table method. Both groups received Kegel exercises. The control group additionally received pelvic floor EMG biofeedback therapy. The study group received combined pelvic magnetic therapy and pelvic floor EMG biofeedback therapy. The outcomes compared between groups were as follows: Bladder Function: First urge voiding volume (FVS), maximum urge voiding volume (MVS), post-void residual urine volume (PVR), prolapse of pelvic floor organs, urodynamics: Pressure of urethral maximum measurement (PUM), maximum urethral closure pressure (PMUC), bladder compliance (BC), pelvic floor muscle function: Pelvic floor muscle strength grade (PFMT), pelvic floor resting pressure (RP), vaginal dynamic pressure (VDPT). Normally distributed continuous data were presented as xˉ± s and compared by independent samples t-test. Categorical data were presented as case (%) and compared by χ2 test. Ranked data were compared by Kruskal-Wallis H test. A P-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences between groups ( P>0.05). At post-treatment, the study group had a significantly higher clinical effective rate of 97.10% (67/69) compared to the control group, which was 88.24% (60/68) ( χ2=3.98, P=0.046). At post-treatment, the study group had significantly higher FVS [(238.29±10.22) mL vs. (229.37±10.54) mL, t=5.03, P<0.001] and MVS [(436.57±12.48) mL vs. (428.23±12.75) mL, t=3.87, P<0.001], and significantly lower PVR [(5.14±1.28) mL vs. (6.96±1.21) mL, t=8.55, P<0.001] compared to the control group. At post-treatment, urodynamic parameters were significantly higher in the study group: PUM [(10.08±0.97) kPa vs. (8.54±0.73) kPa, t=10.49, P<0.001], PMUC [(8.71±0.75) kPa vs. (7.68±0.64) kPa, t=8.64, P<0.001], and BC [(396.58±30.49) mL/kPa vs. (378.86±32.91) mL/kPa, t=3.27, P<0.001]. For pelvic organ prolapse (POP-Q), the distribution were as follows: Study Group: Grade 0: 16, Grade Ⅰ: 34, Grade Ⅱ: 18, Grade Ⅲ: 1, Grade Ⅳ: 0, control Group: Grade 0: 9, Grade Ⅰ: 31, Grade Ⅱ: 23, Grade Ⅲ:5, Grade Ⅳ: 0. The difference was statistically significant ( Z=2.08, P=0.037). At post-treatment, pelvic floor muscle function was significantly higher in the study group: PFMT [(4.21±0.29) vs. (3.84±0.23), t=8.27, P<0.001], RP [(9.59±1.26) cmH?O vs. (8.34±1.17) cmH?O, t=6.02, P<0.001], and VDPT [(82.74±3.36) cmH?O vs. (77.45±3.52) cmH?O, t=9.00, P<0.001]. Conclusion:Combined pelvic magnetic therapy and pelvic floor EMG biofeedback therapy demonstrates significant efficacy in treating PFD in perimenopausal women. It markedly improves bladder function and urodynamic status.
