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。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde Pub Date : 2024-03-06 eCollection Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2243-3784
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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:比较标准护理、盆底肌肉训练(PFMT)和阴道栓剂这三种保守治疗产后尿失禁(UI)的方法:在六家门诊诊所开展了一项多中心、开放标签、平行组、实用随机对照临床试验,比较了标准护理、PFMT 和阴道栓剂对产后尿失禁的治疗效果。样本量基于较大的治疗效果(Cramers' V > 0.35),3 × 3 或然率表的功率为 80%,α值为 0.05,试验需要纳入 44 名患者。试验结果按照意向治疗原则进行分析。根据情况采用方差分析(ANOVA)、Kruskal-Wallis 和卡方检验进行组间比较。P 结果:在接受筛查的 516 名妇女中,有 111 人出现产后尿失禁。其中 52 人被随机分配到三个治疗组中的一个:标准护理组(17 人)、盆底肌肉训练组(17 人)或阴道立方体栓剂组(18 人)。治疗 12 周后,以患者满意度衡量,阴道栓剂组的治疗成功率(77.8%,n = 14/18)明显高于标准护理组(41.2%,n = 7/17)和盆底肌肉训练组(23.5%,n = 4/17;χ 2 2,n = 52 = 14.55;p = 0.006,Cramer-V = 0.374)。无不良事件报告。SUI和MUI占产后UI的88.4%:结论:阴道栓剂在令人满意地减轻产后尿失禁症状方面优于标准护理或PFMT。未发现并发症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 2 2,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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde
Geburtshilfe Und Frauenheilkunde 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
22.20%
发文量
828
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信