FES-biofeedback versus intensive pelvic floor muscle exercise for the prevention and treatment of genuine stress incontinence

We undertook this work to compare the treatment efficacies and the changes of quality of life after pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercise and the functio nal electrical stimulation (FES)-biofeedback treatment, both of which are b eing widely used as conservative treatment methods for female urinary incon tinence. We randomly selected 60 female incontinence patients who visited o ur department and divided them evenly into two groups. They were treated fo r a period of 6 weeks. The subjective changes in the severity of incontinen ce and discomfort in daily and social life were measured using a translated version of the questionnaire by Jackson. Objective changes of pelvic muscl e contraction force were measured using a perineometer. Pre- and post-treat ment maximal pelvic floor muscle contractile (PMC) pressure and changes in the severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort of the two groups showe d statistically significant differences (p<0.001). In particular the FES-bi ofeedback group showed significantly increased maximal PMC pressure and a d ecreased severity of urinary incontinence and discomfort compared to the in tensive PFM exercise group (p<0.001). In conclusion, FES-biofeedback proved more effective than simple PFM exercise.