Lunardi A C, Foltran G C, Carro D F, Silveira L T Y, Haddad J M, Ferreira E A G
Departamento de Fisioterapia, Fonoaudiologia e Terapia Ocupacional, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Disciplina de Obstetricia, Departamento de Obstetricia e Ginecologia, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Disabil Rehabil. 2025 Jun;47(13):3256-3267. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2024.2419424. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
Comparing the efficacy of electrical stimulation (ES) and pelvic floor muscles training (PFMT) on urinary incontinence (UI) symptoms, quality of life and sexual function on women with stress UI. Also, to analyze the influence of supervised and non-supervised PFMT.
Systematic review of randomized trials involving adult women with stress UI. Studies' review was performed by two independent researchers on PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Library, LILACS. The PEDro scale was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. The certainty of evidence was analyzed by the GRADE. A meta-analysis was performed.
Seven studies comprising 411 women with stress UI were included. Methodological quality ranged from 3 to 8 points. Treatment sessions varied from 5 to 45 min (PMFT) and 15 to 30 min (ES), from 4 weeks to 6 months. Studies varied regarding the type of electrical current and its characteristics. With very low certainty of evidence and severe risk of methodological bias, the meta-analysis showed that ES is not superior to supervised or unsupervised PFMT for any outcome.
ES is not superior to PFMT for reducing urinary leakage or improving quality of life in women with stress UI.
比较电刺激(ES)和盆底肌肉训练(PFMT)对压力性尿失禁(UI)女性的尿失禁症状、生活质量和性功能的疗效。此外,分析有监督和无监督的PFMT的影响。
对涉及成年压力性尿失禁女性的随机试验进行系统评价。由两名独立研究人员在PubMed、EMBASE、PEDro、Cochrane图书馆、LILACS上进行研究综述。使用PEDro量表评估纳入研究的质量。采用GRADE分析证据的确定性。进行荟萃分析。
纳入了7项研究,共411名压力性尿失禁女性。方法学质量评分为3至8分。治疗时间从5至45分钟(PMFT)和15至30分钟(ES)不等,持续时间从4周至6个月。研究在电流类型及其特征方面存在差异。由于证据确定性极低且存在严重的方法学偏倚风险,荟萃分析表明,对于任何结局,ES均不优于有监督或无监督的PFMT。
对于减轻压力性尿失禁女性的尿漏或改善生活质量,ES并不优于PFMT。