Efficacy of an external urethral device in women with genuine stress urinary incontinence
- 36 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAnti-incontinence device FemAssist Genuine stress incontinence Mechanical external device Multichannel videourodynamic studies Non-surgical treatment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.Jolleys JV. Reported prevalence of urinary incontinence in women in a general practice.Br Med J 1988;296:1300–1302Google Scholar
- 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.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.Mantle J, Versi E. Physiotherapy for stress urinary incontinence: a national survey.Br Med J 1991;302:753–755Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 15.Versi E, Cardozo LD. Urodynamics. In: Studd JWW, ed. Progress in obstetrics and gynaecology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:193–218Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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