Sung M S, Hong J Y, Choi Y H, Baik S H, Yoon H
Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Seoul, Korea.
J Korean Med Sci. 2000 Jun;15(3):303-8. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2000.15.3.303.
We undertook this work to compare the treatment efficacies and the changes of quality of life after pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercise and the functional electrical stimulation (FES)-biofeedback treatment, both of which are being widely used as conservative treatment methods for female urinary incontinence. We randomly selected 60 female incontinence patients who visited our department and divided them evenly into two groups. They were treated for a period of 6 weeks. The subjective changes in the severity of incontinence and discomfort in daily and social life were measured using a translated version of the questionnaire by Jackson. Objective changes of pelvic muscle contraction force were measured using a perineometer. Pre- and post-treatment maximal pelvic floor muscle contractile (PMC) pressure and changes in the severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort of the two groups showed statistically significant differences (p<0.001). In particular the FES-biofeedback group showed significantly increased maximal PMC pressure and a decreased severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort compared to the intensive PFM exercise group (p<0.001). In conclusion, FES-biofeedback proved more effective than simple PFM exercise.
我们开展这项研究是为了比较盆底肌肉(PFM)锻炼与功能性电刺激(FES)-生物反馈治疗后的治疗效果及生活质量变化,这两种方法均被广泛用作女性尿失禁的保守治疗方法。我们随机选取了60名到我院就诊的女性尿失禁患者,并将她们平均分为两组。她们接受了为期6周的治疗。使用Jackson问卷的翻译版本测量失禁严重程度以及日常生活和社交生活中不适的主观变化。使用会阴压力计测量盆底肌肉收缩力的客观变化。两组治疗前后的最大盆底肌肉收缩(PMC)压力以及尿失禁严重程度和不适的变化显示出统计学上的显著差异(p<0.001)。特别是,与强化PFM锻炼组相比,FES-生物反馈组的最大PMC压力显著增加,尿失禁严重程度和不适程度降低(p<0.001)。总之,FES-生物反馈被证明比单纯的PFM锻炼更有效。