Urinary Incontinence
Conditions
Brief summary
The objective of this study is to compare two methods of pelvic floor muscle training: reference method versus CMP ® method ( (Connaissance et Maîtrise de Périnée : Knowledge and Control of Perineum)
Interventions
OTHERReference method
Electrostimulation associated to perineal training
OTHERCMP ® method
Method based on Knowledge and Control of Perineum
Sponsors
Hopital Foch
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients more than 18 years old and less than 75 years * Patients presenting an urinary incontinence of effort or mixed symptomatic associated with a pelvic statics disorder * Patients with a perineale reeducation prescription * Patients affiliated to a national insurance scheme or benefiting from such a program * Patients having given her written consent form
Exclusion criteria
* Nulliparous woman * Patients already operated for their incontinence * Patients with a prolapse of higher level at the stage II of the classification POP-Q (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification) * Pregnant women * Patients presenting an associated anal incontinence, * Patients presenting a cancellation (section of marrow, syringomyelia for example) or an inversion of perineum control * Patients having given birth less than 6 months before the care * Patients having benefited from a pelvi-périnéale reeducation in the previous 12 months, * Patients presenting psychiatric disease * Patients presenting a vaginismus, * Patients presenting a contraindication to the practice of the electrostimulation.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| USP (Urinary Symptoms Profile) score | 38 weeks | Urinary Symptoms Profile score |
Countries
France
Outcome results
None listed