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

Sören Lange, Rainer Lange, Elham Tabibi, Thomas Hitschold, Veronika I Müller, Gert Naumann
Author Information
  1. Sören Lange: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. ORCID
  2. Rainer Lange: DieGyn-Praxis, Alzey/Lampertheim/Mainz/Bad Kreuznach, Germany.
  3. Elham Tabibi: DieGyn-Praxis, Alzey/Lampertheim/Mainz/Bad Kreuznach, Germany.
  4. Thomas Hitschold: Pelvic floor center Rheinhessen, Klinikum Worms gGmbH, Worms, Germany.
  5. Veronika I Müller: Institute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
  6. Gert Naumann: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helios-Klinikum, Erfurt, Germany.

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; χ  = 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Dec 17;(12):CD001756 [PMID: 25517397]
  2. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990 Mar;38(3):374-8 [PMID: 2179382]
  3. Int J Womens Health. 2018 Apr 17;10:195-201 [PMID: 29713205]
  4. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 May;62(5):464-75 [PMID: 19348971]
  5. Can Fam Physician. 2002 Jan;48:86-92 [PMID: 11852616]
  6. Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Apr;32(4):1015-1022 [PMID: 33034677]
  7. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019 Feb;38(2):433-477 [PMID: 30681183]
  8. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 May 6;5:CD007471 [PMID: 32378735]
  9. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;135(4):e178-e188 [PMID: 32217980]
  10. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023 Aug;308(2):651-659 [PMID: 37210701]
  11. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010 Dec;89(12):1511-22 [PMID: 21050146]
  12. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004 Sep-Oct;15(5):302-7 [PMID: 15300365]
  13. Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Jul;32(7):1817-1824 [PMID: 33484286]
  14. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 04;10:CD005654 [PMID: 30288727]
  15. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60 [PMID: 19897823]
  16. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016 Nov/Dec;22(6):491-496 [PMID: 27661211]
  17. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;198(5):592.e1-5 [PMID: 18455542]
  18. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun 24;384(25):2428-2436 [PMID: 34161707]
  19. BMC Womens Health. 2020 Nov 16;20(1):254 [PMID: 33198742]
  20. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;198(5):563.e1-6 [PMID: 18355780]
  21. BMJ Open. 2012 Dec 02;2(6): [PMID: 23204142]
  22. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2023 Jan 20;83(4):377-409 [PMID: 37034417]
  23. Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;115(3):609-617 [PMID: 20177294]
  24. Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Oct;24(10):1695-701 [PMID: 23579291]
  25. BJOG. 2015 Jun;122(7):954-62 [PMID: 25039427]
  26. Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 16;144(10):715-23 [PMID: 16702587]
  27. Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Feb;21(2):193-202 [PMID: 19834637]
  28. BJOG. 2016 May;123(6):1022-9 [PMID: 25846816]
  29. Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Jun;24(6):901-12 [PMID: 23436035]