Conservative treatment of female @entity322 with XXXX .

@entity177 @entity1 @entity322
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of @entity177 ( @entity177 ) produced by the Pulsegen device compared with placebo in the treatment of @entity1 with @entity322 . METHODS: Fifty-five @entity1 with @entity322 were randomly assigned to the active @entity177 group (30 @entity1 ) or the placebo group (22 @entity1 ). Each @entity1 in the active group received a Pulsegen device, which produced a pulsating magnetic field of B = 10 microT intensity and a frequency of 10 Hz. @entity1 were asked to wear the Pulsegen device day and night for 2 months. Clinical and urodynamic data were collected before and after @entity177 and analyzed using nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: Compared with the placebo, the number of pads used was significantly lower (P = 0.0031) after @entity177 , as was the pad weight (P = 0.014). In @entity1 from the active group, a significant improvement in the power of the pelvic floor muscle contractions (P = 0.0071), as well as in the duration of the pelvic floor muscle contractions (P = 0.038), was observed. After @entity177 , a 56.3% improvement in @entity322 was reported by @entity1 in the active group, a significantly greater difference (P = 0.00012) compared with the reported 26.3% improvement in symptoms in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that @entity177 represents a new method in the conservative treatment of @entity322 . Magnetic stimulation with the Pulsegen device is efficient and safe. It can be used at home and, because of its small size, wearing the device is not annoying for @entity1 .
