Pelvic PT Distance Journal Club, April 8,
2015
Background:
Same authors previously reports high rates of
UI (67% of 200) and sexual dysfunction among gynecological cancer survivors
Rutledge TL, Heckman SR, Qualls C,
Muller CY, Rogers RG. Pelvic floor disorders and sexual function in gynecologic
cancer survivors: a cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;203(5):514e1–7 [Epub
2010/09/28].
·
effectiveness of PFMT and behavioral therapy, has not been evaluated in
gynecologic cancer survivors.
·
effectiveness of these interventions may differ in cancer survivors since
radiation, chemotherapy and radical pel-vic surgery can result in significant
anatomical functional changes in the pelvis and lower urinary tract, including
damage of nerve fibers and compromise of vascular supply with resultant
fibrosis.
Subjects: Fig
1
98 women screened for enrollment
inclusion: > 30, hx uterine,
cervical, ovarian, or vulvar CA, dz and rx free x one year, no evidence of
cancer,
58 were excluded, 23 refused to
participate, 3 excluded for other reasons
40 women were randomized into 2
groups
1- usual care/ “no training” 3,
dced intervention, 3 lost to f/u, n=17
2- PFMT + behavioral, 1 dced
intervention, 1 lost to f./u n=19
no differences in 2 groups
obesity common
endometrial cancer most common
Methods:
Screened for UI using Sandvik ISI,
QUID, UDI-6, IIQ-7
Randomized to group
Rx
group- handout and instruction
describing behavioral management tips for urinary incontinence. information and
suggestions about optimal volume fluid intake, constipation management,
measures to reduce urinary urgency by decreasing fluid intake, and avoiding
caffeine and other bladder irritants that have proved effective in other
intervention trials ( based on
Burgio KL, Kraus SR, Menefee S, Borello-France D, Corton M, Johnson HW, et al.
Behavioral therapy to enable women with urge incontinence to discontinue drug
treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2008;149(3):161–9 [Epub
2008/08/06].)
Rx group received a clinic visit in which the provider confirmed appropriate contraction of the
pelvic floor by palpation of the levator ani during a contraction and rated the
strength of the contraction using the Brink's scale. The provider performing
the training attended two pelvic floor physical therapy sessions with experienced
pelvic floor PTs feedback was given to participants to avoid contraction of
abdominal, gluteal, or adductor muscles.
PFMT training program was explained to the participant verbally and in
written form. 10 pelvic floor muscle contractions with a goal of holding the
contraction for 5 s; women were asked to perform 3 sets daily for the twelve
week study period.
Rx groupreceived a re- minder phone call approximately four weeks after
the first study visit.
Control group: usual care in clinic, no training, education, or
exercises , same questionnaires, PFM assessment at 12 wks using the Brink's
scale.
Both groups answered all questionnaires and Pt Global Impression (PGI)
of Improvement scale at 12 wks
training program was offered to the women in the control group after
they completed the study if still incontinent
Results:
Mean age 57
SUI most common based on QUID, 70%, mixed UI seen in 25% , median ISI
score was 3 for rx group and 4 for control group, = moderate to severe UI; no
change in this score after 3 months
the majority of women in the treatment group reported improvement in
their urinary incontinence. At three months, 80% of the PFMT group and 40% of
the control group reported that their urinary in- continence was “much better”
or “very much better” as evaluated by the Patient Global Impression of
Improvement scale (p = 0.02).
At three months, 70% of the PFMT group and 50% of the control group
reported lack of bother from their urinary incontinence, as assessed by UDI-6,p
= 0.62, not different.
No change in the condition specific quality of life scores (IIQ-7) between
the two groups as compared pre and post intervention.
treatment group demonstrated significant improvement in the measure of
pelvic floor muscle function as measured by the Brink's score (p = 0.0001). The
average Brink's score was 3 points higher in the treatment group at the three
month evaluation compared with the study enrollment score.
Limitations: single center, small sample size, short duration and intensity of rx
program, evaluator at 12 wks not blinded , PFMT no provided by qualified PTs
Strengths: random assignment, use of validated outcomes
Discussion:
three-month pelvic floor muscle training program in combination with
behavioral therapy resulted in significant improvement in urinary incontinence
symptoms for gynecologic cancer survivors; 80% of survivors felt their
condition had improved or was cured versus a 40% improvement in the control
group who received usual care.
PGI-I, ISI and Brink's scores all demonstrated significant improvement
for the treatment group in our study.
No improvement in condition-specific quality of life or bother from
incontinence was shown
Questions
for discussion:
Why did they use the Brink scale?
What other measure might have been more objective?
What type of training did they
have by experienced pelvic PTs and who provided the intervention, all MDs?
What other interventions would
have been appropriate since the majority had SUI?
Why did the severity score not
change?
What other interventions might be
offered to further improve QOL and decr
Sx in these women?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.