Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 757–761 | Cite as

Update: the “Contiform” intravaginal device in four sizes for the treatment of stress incontinence

Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Contiform intravaginal device for stress incontinence after the addition of a fourth size. We offered the device to a cohort of 73 women with a main complaint of stress incontinence but no prolapse. Of the 73 women invited to participate, 65 enrolled, of whom 52 were fitted. Of these 52 women, 37 (71%) completed the study protocol. Outcome measures were the 24-h pad test, St George score, and quality of life tests. Urine loss on pad test was significantly reduced from a median 6.6 g (interquartile range [IQR] = 4.3–22.6) to 2.2 g (IQR = 0.5–8.2; P = 0.0016) after 4 weeks with significant benefit seen on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and Urinary Distress Inventory. The insertion technique was quickly learnt, and the device was well tolerated. The recently developed medium/large size of Contiform was used by 6/37 (16%) women.

Keywords

Contiform Stress urinary incontinence Vaginal device 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the late Dr. Nicholas Biswas, original designer of the device and of the fourth size, for the donation of a personal computer to the research staff of the unit.

Note:

Contiform does not currently have FDA approval, but is available from Contiform International EShop in Australia

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Morris AR, Moore KH (2003) The Contiform incontinence device—efficacy and patient acceptability. Int Urogynecol J 14:412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karantanis E, O’Sullivan R, Moore KH (2003) The 24-hour pad test in continent women and men: normal values and cyclical changes. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110:567–571Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackwell AL, Yoong W, Moore KH (2004) Criterion validity, test–retest reliability and sensitivity to change of the St George urinary incontinence score. BJU Int 93:331–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore KH (2000) Conservative management for urinary incontinence. Ballieres Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 14:251–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. A. Allen
    • 1
  • H. Leek
    • 1
  • A. Izurieta
    • 1
  • K. H. Moore
    • 2
  1. 1.Pelvic Floor UnitSt George HospitalKogarahAustralia
  2. 2.Obstetrics and GynecologySt George HospitalKogarahAustralia

Personalised recommendations