Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > Europa Medicophysica 2000 March;35(1) > Europa Medicophysica 2000 March;35(1):45-8

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL AND REHABILITATION MEDICINE

A Journal on Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation after Pathological Events


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (SIMFER), European Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ESPRM), European Union of Medical Specialists - Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Section (UEMS-PRM), Mediterranean Forum of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (MFPRM), Hellenic Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EEFIAP)
In association with International Society of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (ISPRM)
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,827


eTOC

 

SHORT ORIGINAL ARTICLES  FREEfree


Europa Medicophysica 2000 March;35(1):45-8

Copyright © 2000 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Pelvic floor rehabilitation. A comparison of two methods of treatment: vaginal cones versus functional electrical stimulation

Delneri C., Di Benedetto P.

Rehabilitation Center, Santorio Hospital, Trieste, Italy


FULL TEXT  


BACKGROUND: In ­recent ­years, pelvic floor reha­bil­i­ta­tion has ­become one of the pos­sible approach­es to treat­ing uri­nary incon­ti­nence in wom­en, guid­ed by a clin­i­cal assess­ment and a ­thorough urod­y­nam­ic inves­ti­ga­tion to ­ensure ­that the selec­tion of one or ­more of the reha­bil­i­ta­tive tech­niques is ­based ­upon pre­cise indi­ca­tions. In the ­present ­study we ­sought to com­pare the ­results of two reha­bil­i­ta­tive meth­ods: Functional electri­cal stim­u­la­tion (FES) and vag­i­nal ­cones in ­patients ­with gen­u­ine ­stress urinary incon­ti­nence (GSI).
METHODS: Twenty wom­en ­aged 29 -81 ­years ­were treat­ed; 10 ­with FES and 10 ­with vag­i­nal ­cones. Each ­patient under­went a ­thorough diag­nos­tic ­work-up, includ­ing a ­full his­to­ry and med­i­cal exam­ina­tion, vis­u­al-ana­logue ­scale (VAS), PC ­test, PAD ­test, and a com­plete uro­log­i­cal exam­ina­tion.
RESULTS: Analysis of the ­data ­revealed ­that in ­both ­groups ­there ­were sub­stan­tial improve­ments in all of the param­e­ters con­sid­ered and ­that the param­e­ter show­ing the ­best ­result ­with the ­cones was the abdom­i­nou­reth­ral trans­mis­sion ­rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The pos­i­tive ­results ­obtained ­using the ­cones and FES ­attest to ­their util­ity in suit­able cas­es, not ­least ­because of ­their sim­plic­ity, inex­pen­sive­ness, ­lack of ­side-­effects and ­above all ­because ­they are so ­easy to ­teach and so ­take up ­less of the ­professional’s ­time.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail