Home electrical stimulation for women with XXXX : a preliminary randomized controlled trial.

@entity322 @entity8425 @entity148 @entity1241 @entity130
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and cost of @entity8425 and standardized biofeedback training in females with @entity1241 METHODS: Thirty-six females suffering from @entity1241 were randomized into two groups, matched for mean age (67.45        7.2  years), mean body mass index (kg/m(2)) (26.2        3.9), mean disease duration (4.1        0.8  years), mean number of births (2.7        1.3), and reports of @entity130 (25  %). Questionnaires were used to evaluate their demographics, medical, and childbearing history. Subjects were randomized to @entity8425 or standardized biofeedback training for a period of 6  weeks. Subjective outcome measures included the frequency of fecal, urine, and gas @entity322 by visual analog scale, Vaizey @entity322 score, and subjects' levels of @entity1241 related @entity148 . Objective outcome measures included pelvic floor muscle strength assessed by surface electromyography. We also compared the cost of each treatment modality. RESULTS: Only females who received @entity8425 ( @entity8425 ) reported a significant improvement in Vaizey @entity322 score (p   =   0.001), @entity148 (p   =   0.046), and in frequency of leaked solid stool (p   =   0.013). A significant improvement in pelvic floor muscle strength was achieved by both groups. @entity8425 was much cheaper compared to the cost of standardized biofeedback training (SBT) (US 100 vs. US 220, respectively). Our study comprised a small female population, and the study endpoints did not include objective measures of anorectal function test, such as anorectal manometry, before and after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Home electrical stimulation may offer an alternative to standardized biofeedback training as it is effective and generally well-tolerated therapy for females with @entity1241 .
