International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 271–274 | Cite as

Efficacy of an external urethral device in women with genuine stress urinary incontinence

  • E. Versi
  • M. -A. Harvey
Original Article


The efficacy of a new external anti-incontinence device in patients with a videourodynamic diagnosis of genuine stress incontinence (GSI) in an open longitudinal study is reported. Fourteen women with GSI underwent assessment before and after 3–4 weeks of device use. Assessment consisted of visual analog scores (VAS), quality of life (QOL) questionnaires, urine for culture and a 1 hour pad test. VAS scores showed a significant improvement for the symptom of stress incontinence (P<0.05). QOL scores improved significantly by 38% (P<0.05) and 29% (P<0.01) for the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and Urogenital Distress Inventory, respectively. The mean pad weight decreased by 47% (P=0.056). Of the 9 women who had a positive pad test (>2 g) without the device, 5 were dry (<2 g) with the device (P<0.05). These preliminary data suggest that this device is effective in women with GSI.


Anti-incontinence device FemAssist Genuine stress incontinence Mechanical external device Multichannel videourodynamic studies Non-surgical treatment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lochner JL, Burgio KL. Epidemiology of incontinence. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE, eds. Urogynecology and urodynamics: theory and practice. Baltimore. Williams & Wilkins, 1996;67–73Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jolleys JV. Reported prevalence of urinary incontinence in women in a general practice.Br Med J 1988;296:1300–1302Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fantl JA, Newman DK, Colling J, DeLancey JOL, Keeys C, Loughery R et al. Urinary incontinence in adults: Acute and chronic management. Clinical Practice Guideline, No. 2, 1996 Update. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Agency for Health and Human Services. Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. AHCPR Publication No. 96-0682. March 1996Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bump RC, Cundiff GW. Prevention and management of complications after continence surgery. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE, eds. Urogynecology and urodynamics: theory and practice. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996:595–608Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mantle J, Versi E. Physiotherapy for stress urinary incontinence: a national survey.Br Med J 1991;302:753–755Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nielsen KK, Walter S, Maegaard E, Kromann-Anderson B. The urethral plug II: an alternative treatment in women with genuine urinary stress incontinence.Br J Urol 1993;72:428–432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Versi E, Griffiths DJ, Harvey MA. A new external urethral occlusive device for female urinary incontinence.Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:286–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prashar S, Moore K, Bryant C, Dowell C. The urethral occlusive device for the treatment of urinary incontinence: changes in quality of life.Int Urogynecol J 1997;8(Suppl):S130Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sandvick H, Hunskaar S, Vanvik A, Seim A, Hermstad R. Diagnosis and classification of female urinary incontinence: an epidemiological survey corrected for validity.J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48:338–343Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jarvis GJ, Hall S, Stamp S et al. Assessment of urodynamic examination in incontinent women.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980;87:893–896PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Powell PH, Shepherd AM, Lewis P, Feneley RC. The accuracy of clinical diagnoses assessed urodynamically.Prog Clin Biol Res 1981;78:201–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sand PK, Hill RC, Ostergard DR. Incontinence history as a predictor of detrusor instability.Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:257–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Versi E, Cardozo LD, Anand D et al. Symptoms analysis for the diagnosis of genuine stress incontinence.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98:815–819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tincello DG, Bolderson J, Richmond DH. Preliminary experience with a urinary control device in the management of women with genuine stress incontinence.Br J Urol 1997;80:752–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Versi E, Cardozo LD. Urodynamics. In: Studd JWW, ed. Progress in obstetrics and gynaecology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:193–218Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Versi E. Discriminant analysis of urethral pressure profilometry data for the diagnosis of genuine stress incontinence.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:251–259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS et al. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory.Qual Life Res 1994;3:291–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97(Suppl 6):4–5Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kondo A, Yokoyama E, Koshiba K et al. Bladder neck support prosthesis: a nonoperative treatment for stress or mixed urinary incontinence.J Urol 1997;157:824–827PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thyssen H, Lose G. New disposable vaginal device (Continence Guard) in the treatment of female stress incontinence. Design, efficacy and short term safety.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1996;75:170–173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thyssen H, Lose G. Long term efficacy and safety of a diposable vaginal device (Continence Guard) in the treatment of female stress incontinence.Int Urogynecol J 1997;8:130–133Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris T, Gleason D, Diokno A, Norton P. External urethral barrier for urinary stress incontinence: a multi-center trial.Neurourol Orodyn 1994;13:381–382Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Versi
    • 1
  • M. -A. Harvey
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBrigham and Women's HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations