4.2 Article

Physiotherapeutic assessment and management of overactive bladder syndrome: a case report

期刊

PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 650-657

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2021.2022047

关键词

Overactive bladder; physiotherapy techniques; ultrasound imaging; urologic diseases; soft tissue therapy; pelvic floor therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Overactive Bladder Syndrome (OAB) is a common bladder problem that can be treated with various methods including medication and physiotherapy. This case study highlights the role of physiotherapy in the conservative management of OAB.
Introduction Overactive Bladder Syndrome (OAB) has multiple treatment methods including pharmacotherapy, pelvic floor muscle training, electrostimulation, or surgery. One of the nonpharmacological treatment options is physiotherapy including pelvic floor muscle training. Case Description The patient was a 25 year-old woman who attended the urogynecological physiotherapy consulting room due to frequent sensations of bladder pressure. Manual inspection and ultrasound imaging was used by the physiotherapist in order to assess the function of pelvic and abominal structures. The patient reported pain symptoms during examination of several pelvic floor and abdominal muscles. The patient was judged eligible for urogynecological physiotherapeutic treatment. Manual therapy of the lumbopelvic hip complex, manual therapy per vaginum, manual therapy of the musculus piriformis, and therapy of the superficial back line myofascial meridian and the lateral line myofascial meridian were used. During the final session, the patient reported an improvement in relation to the symptoms presented, most notably no frequent feeling of bladder pressure. Conclusions Treatment of OAB is often a multistage process involving application of different therapies by a multidisciplinary team. For this patient, physiotherapy assessment and intervention were an integral part of the conservative management of OAB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据