Sören Lange, Rainer Lange, Elham Tabibi, Thomas Hitschold, Veronika I Müller, Gert Naumann
{"title":"阴道栓剂与标准护理或盆底肌肉训练治疗产后尿失禁的比较:一项务实的随机对照试验。","authors":"Sören Lange, Rainer Lange, Elham Tabibi, Thomas Hitschold, Veronika I Müller, Gert Naumann","doi":"10.1055/a-2243-3784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To compare three conservative treatment options, standard care, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), and vaginal pessaries, for postpartum urinary incontinence (UI) that are accessible to most patients and practitioners in a generalizable cohort.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A multicenter, open-label, parallel group, pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial comparing standard care, PFMT, and vaginal cube pessary for postpartum urinary incontinence was conducted in six outpatient clinics. Sample size was based on large treatment effects (Cramers' V > 0.35) with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 for a 3 × 3 contingency table, 44 patients needed to be included in the trial. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Group comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square test as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 516 women screened, 111 presented with postpartum UI. Of these, 52 were randomized to one of three treatment groups: standard care (n = 17), pelvic floor muscle training (n = 17), or vaginal cube pessary (n = 18). After 12 weeks of treatment, treatment success, as measured by patient satisfaction, was significantly higher in the vaginal pessary group (77.8%, n = 14/18), compared to the standard care group (41.2%, n = 7/17), and the PFMT (23.5%, n = 4/17; χ <sup>2</sup> <sub>2,n = 52</sub> = 14.55; p = 0.006, Cramer-V = 0.374). No adverse events were reported. SUI and MUI accounted for 88.4% of postpartum UI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Vaginal pessaries were superior to standard care or PFMT to satisfyingly reduce postpartum UI symptoms. No complications were found.</p>","PeriodicalId":12481,"journal":{"name":"Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde","volume":"84 3","pages":"246-255"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10917606/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Vaginal Pessaries to Standard Care or Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Treating Postpartum Urinary Incontinence: a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Sören Lange, Rainer Lange, Elham Tabibi, Thomas Hitschold, Veronika I Müller, Gert Naumann\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2243-3784\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To compare three conservative treatment options, standard care, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), and vaginal pessaries, for postpartum urinary incontinence (UI) that are accessible to most patients and practitioners in a generalizable cohort.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A multicenter, open-label, parallel group, pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial comparing standard care, PFMT, and vaginal cube pessary for postpartum urinary incontinence was conducted in six outpatient clinics. Sample size was based on large treatment effects (Cramers' V > 0.35) with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 for a 3 × 3 contingency table, 44 patients needed to be included in the trial. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Group comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square test as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 516 women screened, 111 presented with postpartum UI. Of these, 52 were randomized to one of three treatment groups: standard care (n = 17), pelvic floor muscle training (n = 17), or vaginal cube pessary (n = 18). After 12 weeks of treatment, treatment success, as measured by patient satisfaction, was significantly higher in the vaginal pessary group (77.8%, n = 14/18), compared to the standard care group (41.2%, n = 7/17), and the PFMT (23.5%, n = 4/17; χ <sup>2</sup> <sub>2,n = 52</sub> = 14.55; p = 0.006, Cramer-V = 0.374). No adverse events were reported. SUI and MUI accounted for 88.4% of postpartum UI.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Vaginal pessaries were superior to standard care or PFMT to satisfyingly reduce postpartum UI symptoms. No complications were found.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde\",\"volume\":\"84 3\",\"pages\":\"246-255\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10917606/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2243-3784\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2243-3784","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Vaginal Pessaries to Standard Care or Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Treating Postpartum Urinary Incontinence: a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.
Introduction: To compare three conservative treatment options, standard care, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), and vaginal pessaries, for postpartum urinary incontinence (UI) that are accessible to most patients and practitioners in a generalizable cohort.
Materials and methods: A multicenter, open-label, parallel group, pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial comparing standard care, PFMT, and vaginal cube pessary for postpartum urinary incontinence was conducted in six outpatient clinics. Sample size was based on large treatment effects (Cramers' V > 0.35) with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 for a 3 × 3 contingency table, 44 patients needed to be included in the trial. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Group comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square test as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Of the 516 women screened, 111 presented with postpartum UI. Of these, 52 were randomized to one of three treatment groups: standard care (n = 17), pelvic floor muscle training (n = 17), or vaginal cube pessary (n = 18). After 12 weeks of treatment, treatment success, as measured by patient satisfaction, was significantly higher in the vaginal pessary group (77.8%, n = 14/18), compared to the standard care group (41.2%, n = 7/17), and the PFMT (23.5%, n = 4/17; χ 22,n = 52 = 14.55; p = 0.006, Cramer-V = 0.374). No adverse events were reported. SUI and MUI accounted for 88.4% of postpartum UI.
Conclusion: Vaginal pessaries were superior to standard care or PFMT to satisfyingly reduce postpartum UI symptoms. No complications were found.
期刊介绍:
Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde (GebFra) addresses the whole field of obstetrics and gynecology and is concerned with research as much as with clinical practice. In its scientific section, it publishes original articles, reviews and case reports in all fields of the discipline, namely
gynecological oncology, including oncology of the breast
obstetrics and perinatal medicine,
reproductive medicine,
and urogynecology.
GebFra invites the submission of original articles and review articles.
In addition, the journal publishes guidelines, statements and recommendations in cooperation with the DGGG, SGGG, OEGGG and the Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF, Association of Scientific Medical Societies, www.awmf.org). Apart from the scientific section, Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde has a news and views section that also includes discussions, book reviews and professional information.
Letters to the editors are welcome. If a letter discusses an article that has been published in our journal, the corresponding author of the article will be informed and invited to comment on the letter. The comment will be published along with the letter.