SHORT ORIGINAL ARTICLES   Free

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

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.