Comparison of Vaginal Pessaries to Standard Care or Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Treating Postpartum Urinary Incontinence: a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction

To compare three conservative treatment options, standard care, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), and vaginal pessaries, for postpartum urinary incontinence (UI) that are accessible to most patients and practitioners in a generalizable cohort.

Materials and Methods

A multicenter, open-label, parallel group, pragmatic randomized controlled clinical trial comparing standard care, PFMT, and vaginal cube pessary for postpartum urinary incontinence was conducted in six outpatient clinics. Sample size was based on large treatment effects (Cramers’ V > 0.35) with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05 for a 3 × 3 contingency table, 44 patients needed to be included in the trial. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Group comparisons were made using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis, and chi-square test as appropriate. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Of the 516 women screened, 111 presented with postpartum UI. Of these, 52 were randomized to one of three treatment groups: standard care (n = 17), pelvic floor muscle training (n = 17), or vaginal cube pessary (n = 18). After 12 weeks of treatment, treatment success, as measured by patient satisfaction, was significantly higher in the vaginal pessary group (77.8%, n = 14/18), compared to the standard care group (41.2%, n = 7/17), and the PFMT (23.5%, n = 4/17; χ² _2,n = 52 = 14.55; p = 0.006, Cramer-V = 0.374). No adverse events were reported. SUI and MUI accounted for 88.4% of postpartum UI.

Conclusion

Vaginal pessaries were superior to standard care or PFMT to satisfyingly reduce postpartum UI symptoms. No complications were found.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung

Ziel war es, 3 konservative Optionen zur Behandlung der postpartalen Harninkontinenz in einer verallgemeinerbaren Kohorte zu vergleichen. Verfügbare Behandlungsoptionen waren Standardversorgung (Rückbildungskurse), Beckenbodenphysiotherapie und Pessare, die den meisten Patientinnen und Behandelnden zur Verfügung stehen.

Material und Methoden

Es wurde eine multizentrische offene pragmatische randomisierte kontrollierte klinische Studie mit parallelen Gruppen durchgeführt. Die Outcomes nach Standardversorgung (Rückbildungskurse), Beckenbodenphysiotherapie oder Würfel-Pessaren zur Behandlung von postpartaler Harninkontinenz wurden in 6 Arztpraxen verglichen. Zum Nachweis eines großen Behandlungseffektes (Cramers V > 0,35) mit einer Teststärke von 80% bei einem Alpha von 0,05 für eine 3 × 3-Kontingenztabelle wurde eine Stichprobengröße von mindestens 44 Patientinnen errechnet. Die Outcomes wurden nach dem Intention-to-treat-Prinzip analysiert. Die Gruppen wurden mithilfe der Varianzanalyse (ANOVA) sowie Kruskal-Wallis- und Chi-Quadrat-Test verglichen. Der p-Wert für die statistische Signifikanz betrug < 0,05.

Ergebnisse

Von den 516 untersuchten Frauen hatten 111 eine postpartale Harninkontinenz. Von diesen Frauen wurden 52 in jeweils eine der 3 Behandlungsgruppen randomisiert: Standardversorgung (Rückbildungskurse, n = 17), Beckenbodenphysiotherapie (n = 17) und Würfel-Pessare (n = 18). Nach 12 Wochen Behandlungszeit war der an der Patientinnenzufriedenheit gemessene Behandlungserfolg signifikant höher in der Pessar-Gruppe (77,8%, n = 14/18) verglichen mit den Gruppen Standardversorgung (Rückbildungskurse, 41,2%, n = 7/17) und Beckenbodenphysiotherapie (23,5%, n = 4/17; χ² _2,n = 52 = 14,55; p = 0,006, Cramers-V = 0,374). Es gab keine unerwünschten Ereignisse. Belastungsinkontinenz und Mischinkontinenz machten 88,4% der Fälle mit postpartaler Harninkontinenz aus.

Schlussfolgerung

Es stellte sich heraus, dass für eine zufriedenstellende Reduktion von Symptomen der postpartalen Harninkontinenz Pessare der Standardversorgung (Rückbildungskurse) und der Beckenbodenphysiotherapie überlegen waren. Komplikationen sind keine aufgetreten.

Publication History

Received: 25 September 2023

Accepted after revision: 10 January 2024

Article published online:
06 March 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Brown SJ, Donath S, MacArthur C. et al. Urinary incontinence in nulliparous women before and during pregnancy: prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Int Urogynecology J 2010; 21: 193-202 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-009-1011-x. (PMID: 19834637)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Thom DH, Rortveit G. Prevalence of postpartum urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89: 1511-1522 DOI: 10.3109/00016349.2010.526188. (PMID: 21050146)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Sangsawang B, Sangsawang N. Stress urinary incontinence in pregnant women: a review of prevalence, pathophysiology, and treatment. Int Urogynecology J 2013; 24: 901-912 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2061-7. (PMID: 23436035)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 MacArthur C, Wilson D, Herbison P. et al. Urinary incontinence persisting after childbirth: extent, delivery history, and effects in a 12-year longitudinal cohort study. BJOG 2016; 123: 1022-1029 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13395. (PMID: 25846816)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Wu JM. Stress Incontinence in Women. N Engl J Med 2021; 384: 2428-2436 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp1914037. (PMID: 34161707)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Mitteness LS. Knowledge and beliefs about urinary incontinence in adulthood and old age. J Am Geriatr Soc 1990; 38: 374-378 DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1990.tb03525.x. (PMID: 2179382)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Tikkinen KAO, Leinonen JS, Guyatt GH. et al. What is a disease? Perspectives of the public, health professionals and legislators. BMJ Open 2012; 2: e001632 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001632. (PMID: 23204142)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Swanson JG, Skelly J, Hutchison B. et al. Urinary incontinence in Canada. National survey of family physicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Can Fam Physician Med Fam Can 2002; 48: 86-92 (PMID: 11852616)
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Witkoś J, Hartman-Petrycka M. Do future healthcare professionals have adequate knowledge about risk factors for stress urinary incontinence in women?. BMC Womens Health 2020; 20: 254 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-020-01124-0. (PMID: 33198742)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Brown S, Gartland D, Perlen S. et al. Consultation about urinary and faecal incontinence in the year after childbirth: a cohort study. BJOG 2015; 122: 954-962 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12963. (PMID: 25039427)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Woodley SJ, Lawrenson P, Boyle R. et al. Pelvic floor muscle training for preventing and treating urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; (05) CD007471 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007471.pub4. (PMID: 32378735)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Richter HE, Burgio KL, Brubaker L. et al. Continence Pessary Compared With Behavioral Therapy or Combined Therapy for Stress Incontinence: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 609-617 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d055d4. (PMID: 20177294)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Noblett KL, McKinney A, Lane FL. Effects of the incontinence dish pessary on urethral support and urodynamic parameters. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198: 592.e1-592.e5 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.02.004. (PMID: 18455542)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Al-Shaikh G, Syed S, Osman S. et al. Pessary use in stress urinary incontinence: a review of advantages, complications, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Int J Womens Health 2018; 10: 195-201 DOI: 10.2147/IJWH.S152616. (PMID: 29713205)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Naumann G, Aigmüller T, Bader W. et al. Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Urinary Incontinence. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/091, January 2022): Part 1 with Recommendations on Diagnostics and Conservative and Medical Treatment. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2023; 83: 377-409 DOI: 10.1055/a-1967-1726. (PMID: 37034417)
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Komesu YM, Ketai LH, Rogers RG. et al. Restoration of continence by pessaries: magnetic resonance imaging assessment of mechanism of action. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198: 563.e1-563.e6 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.047.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Lipp A, Shaw C, Glavind K. Mechanical devices for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (12) CD001756 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001756.pub6. (PMID: 25517397)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Kiefner B, Schwab F, Kuppinger M. et al. Evaluating compliance and applicability of postpartum pessary use for preventing and treating pelvic floor dysfunction: a prospective multicenter study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2023; 308: 651-659 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-07075-9. (PMID: 37210701)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD. et al. A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 464-475 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011. (PMID: 19348971)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Brown JS, Bradley CS, Subak LL. et al. The Sensitivity and Specificity of a Simple Test To Distinguish between Urge and Stress Urinary Incontinence. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 715-723 DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00005. (PMID: 16702587)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 D’Ancona C, Haylen B, Oelke M. et al. The International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for adult male lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms and dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2019; 38: 433-477 DOI: 10.1002/nau.23897. (PMID: 30681183)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A. et al. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009; 41: 1149-1160 DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. (PMID: 19897823)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Donnelly MJ, Powell-Morgan S, Olsen AL. et al. Vaginal pessaries for the management of stress and mixed urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2004; 15: 302-307 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-004-1163-7. (PMID: 15300365)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Richter HE, Burgio KL, Brubaker L. et al. Continence pessary compared with behavioral therapy or combined therapy for stress incontinence: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115: 609-617 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d055d4. (PMID: 20177294)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Pelvic floor dysfunction: prevention and non-surgical management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2021. Accessed March 29, 2023 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng210/resources/pelvic-floor-dysfunction-prevention-and-nonsurgical-management-pdf-66143768482501
  Google Scholar
• 26 Physical Activity and Exercise During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 804. Obstet Gynecol [Anonym]. 2020; 135: e178-e188 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003772. (PMID: 32217980)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Dumoulin C, Cacciari LP, Hay-Smith EJC. Pelvic floor muscle training versus no treatment, or inactive control treatments, for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; (10) CD005654 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005654.pub4. (PMID: 30288727)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Moossdorff-Steinhauser HFA, Berghmans BCM, Spaanderman MEA. et al. Urinary incontinence 6 weeks to 1 year post-partum: prevalence, experience of bother, beliefs, and help-seeking behavior. Int Urogynecology J 2021; 32: 1817-1824 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04644-3. (PMID: 33484286)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Brown CA, Pradhan A, Pandeva I. Current trends in pessary management of vaginal prolapse: a multidisciplinary survey of UK practice. Int Urogynecology J 2021; 32: 1015-1022 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04537-5. (PMID: 33034677)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Kandadai P, Mcvay S, Larrieux JR. et al. Knowledge and Comfort With Pessary Use: A Survey of US Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2016; 22: 491-496 DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000322. (PMID: 27661211)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Nemeth Z, Nagy S, Ott J. The cube pessary: an underestimated treatment option for pelvic organ prolapse? Subjective 1-year outcomes. Int Urogynecology J 2013; 24: 1695-1701 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2093-z. (PMID: 23579291)
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Verband der Ersatzkassen. Health care data: insured individuals. 2023 Accessed March 29, 2023 at: https://www.vdek.com/presse/daten/b_versicherte.html
  PubMedGoogle Scholar