Abstract
Pelvic floor muscle training is commonly used for urine loss. However, research studies have not determined which training load is the most effective for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Moreover, none of the previous reviews or studies have described the total effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with an objective test such as the pad test. The objectives were to analyze the effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in women with SUI and to determine which training load produces the greatest adaptations for decreasing urine loss. The search was conducted in three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane), for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of PFMT. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: participants were women; were older than 18; had SUI; were treated with PFMT; and the assessments of the effects were measured with a pad test. Finally, 10 articles (293 women) analyzed the pad test in women with SUI who performed PFMT. The meta-analysis showed that PFMT, independent of the protocol used in the study, resulted in decreased urine loss in women suffering from SUI. However, for large effects, the program should last 6–12 weeks, with >3 sessions/week and a length of session <45 min.
Highlights
The incidence data on urinary incontinence (UI) in the female population is very dissimilar, but according to International Continence Society (ICS) data, 10% of the female population suffers urine leakage weekly and between 25% and 45% of the female population suffers urine leakage occasionally.Hunskaar et al, in 2004 [1], analyzed the prevalence of urinary incontinence in women from fourEuropean countries and showed that stress UI (SUI) was the most common type overall, the relative prevalence of mixed symptoms increased with age, with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) being the most common in the population aged >55
293 women were evaluated for SUI, with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) or control protocol
Regarding the comparison the results indicated that there were no significant differences according to the groups on the subgroup between PFMT and PFMT with training equipment, the results confirmed that analyses, except for thetrained frequency of the intervention, showing improvement frequency was groups with equipment or accessories showed significant improvements compared towhen the PFMT group without the use of equipment
Summary
The incidence data on urinary incontinence (UI) in the female population is very dissimilar, but according to International Continence Society (ICS) data, 10% of the female population suffers urine leakage weekly and between 25% and 45% of the female population suffers urine leakage occasionally.Hunskaar et al, in 2004 [1], analyzed the prevalence of urinary incontinence in women from fourEuropean countries and showed that stress UI (SUI) was the most common type overall, the relative prevalence of mixed symptoms increased with age, with SUI being the most common in the population aged >55. The incidence data on urinary incontinence (UI) in the female population is very dissimilar, but according to International Continence Society (ICS) data, 10% of the female population suffers urine leakage weekly and between 25% and 45% of the female population suffers urine leakage occasionally. In 2004 [1], analyzed the prevalence of urinary incontinence in women from four. European countries and showed that stress UI (SUI) was the most common type overall, the relative prevalence of mixed symptoms increased with age, with SUI being the most common in the population aged >55. Was age associated with UI, but there were other factors associated with it as well. Hunskaar, in 2008 [2], after a systematic review, concluded that. Public Health 2019, 16, 4358; doi:10.3390/ijerph16224358 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
