4.6 Article

Effectiveness of multidimensional exercises for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in elderly community-dwelling Japanese women: A randomized, controlled, crossover trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 55, 期 12, 页码 1932-1939

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01447.x

关键词

urinary incontinence; pelvic floor muscle exercise; fitness exercise; Japanese elderly women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) and fitness exercises in reducing urine leakage in elderly women with stress urinary incontinence (UI). DESIGN: Randomized, crossover, follow-up trial. SETTING: Urban community in Japan. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy women aged 70 and older who reported urine leakage one or more times per month; 35 were randomly assigned to intervention and the other 35 to control. INTERVENTION: The intervention group attended an exercise class aimed at enhancing PFMs and fitness. Duration of the exercise was 60 minutes per session twice a week for 3 months. After 3 months of exercise, the intervention group was followed for 1 year. MEASUREMENTS: Body mass index (BMI), urine leakage, walking speed, and muscle strength were measured at baseline, after the intervention, and at follow-up. RESULTS: In the intervention group, maximum walking speed and adductor muscle strength increased significantly after the intervention; there were no significant changes in the control group. After 3 months of exercise, 54.5% of the intervention group and 9.4% of the control group reported being continent. Within the cured group of UI, a significantly higher proportion had decreased their BMI at 3 months (P = .03) and increased walking speed at 3 (P = .04) and 12 (P = .047) months. CONCLUSION: Decrease in BMI and increase in walking speed may contribute to the treatment of UI, although the data do not support a positive correlation between strengthening of adductor muscle and improvement of UI, which needs more research.

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

4.6
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