English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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&lt;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&lt;0.001). In conclusion, FES-biofeedback proved more effective than simple PFM exercise.

FES-biofeedback versus intensive pelvic floor muscle exercise for the prevention and treatment of genuine stress incontinence