4.2 Article

Rehabilitation vs drug therapy for urge urinary incontinence: short-term outcome

Journal

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 407-411

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-006-0163-1

Keywords

anticholinergic treatment; pelvic floor rehabilitation; physiotherapy; quality of life; urge urinary incontinence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to compare the short-term effectiveness of rehabilitation treatment with a standard drug treatment for urge urinary incontinence (UUI). The study design includes parallel clinical trial in an outpatient urogynecologic clinic setting. The subjects were 44 women who suffered from UUI and who were systematically assigned to a rehabilitation group (REH) (N=24) or a medication group (MED) (N=20). The intervention for REH was consisted of five visits during a 3-month period of pelvic floor muscle training and behavioral training, whereas for MED was extended release oxybutynin at 5 mg/day, for 3 months. The urinary symptoms considered were frequency of voiding per day and night (freq/day and freq/night), number of incontinent episodes per week based on a bladder diary, and data based on the Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument (I-QoL). In the within-group comparison, both groups had improved significantly over time with respect to urinary symptoms and I-QoL (p < 0.01). In addition, there was a significant group-time interaction effect on freq/day. While REH improved during the 3-month follow-up period, the MED group deteriorated to mean baseline value (p < 0.01). A significant negative association was found between the urinary symptoms and the I-QoL at the end of follow-up (r (p)=-0.35 to -0.62, p < 0.05). Three months after the intervention, both groups maintained the achievements of the intervention period. In addition, the REH group demonstrated additional improvement in mean freq/day while the condition of MED patients deteriorated to baseline values.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available