Pelvic floor muscle training for stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse

Ontario Health
Record ID 32018005296
English
Authors' objectives: This health technology assessment evaluates the effectiveness and safety of pelvic floor muscle training for the treatment of people with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, or pelvic organ prolapse. It also evaluates the cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training and budget impact of publicly funding pelvic floor muscle training and the experiences, preferences, and values of people with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, or pelvic organ prolapse.
Authors' results and conclusions: RESULTS We included 6 studies (4 systematic reviews and 2 randomized controlled trials) in the clinical evidence review. In comparison with no treatment, pelvic floor muscle training significantly improved symptom severity and increased patient satisfaction in women with stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse (GRADE: Moderate). For men with stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy, pelvic floor muscle training yielded mixed results for symptom improvement (GRADE: Very low). For adults with fecal incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training did not improve symptoms in comparison with standard care (GRADE: Very low). In the economic literature review, we included 6 cost-utility analyses that had evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training as a treatment for people with pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. We did not identify any economic studies on pelvic floor muscle training for women or men with fecal incontinence or men with pelvic organ prolapse. The analyses included in our review found that, for women with stress urinary incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training was likely cost-effective in comparison with other nonsurgical interventions. For men with urinary incontinence after prostate surgery, pelvic floor muscle training was likely not cost-effective in comparison with standard care. For women with pelvic organ prolapse, the cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in comparison with no active treatment was uncertain. The average cost of pelvic floor muscle training was approximately $763 per patient. Publicly funding pelvic floor muscle training for women with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse would result in additional costs over 5 years of $185.3 million, $275.6 million, and $85.8 million, respectively. Publicly funding pelvic floor muscle training for men with stress urinary incontinence and fecal incontinence would result in additional costs over 5 years of $10.8 million and $131.1 million, respectively. The people we spoke with reported that stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse limited their social and physical activities, taking a huge emotional toll. Many were hesitant or even fearful of surgery, and most people with experience of pelvic floor muscle training reported that it relieved most or all of their symptoms and allowed them to return to normal daily activities. CONCLUSIONS Pelvic floor muscle training is likely more effective (with respect to symptom improvement and patient satisfaction) than no treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Pelvic floor muscle training may yield mixed results with respect to symptom improvement for men with stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and have little to no effect on symptom improvement for adults with fecal incontinence. We estimate that publicly funding pelvic floor muscle training for adults with pelvic floor dysfunction (stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse) in Ontario would result in a substantial budget increase over the next 5 years. People with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse shared the negative impact these conditions have on their social and physical life and valued pelvic floor muscle training as a nonsurgical treatment option.
Authors' recommendations: Ontario Health, based on guidance from the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee, recommends publicly funding pelvic floor muscle training for stress urinary incontinence for women and men and pelvic organ prolapse in women.
Authors' methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the ROBIS tool, for systematic reviews, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, for randomized controlled trials, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search but did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding pelvic floor muscle training in adults with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of pelvic floor muscle training as a treatment, we spoke with people with stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic organ prolapse.
Details
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2024
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Full HTA
Country: Canada
Province: Ontario
Pubmed ID: 39279824
MeSH Terms
  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse
  • Exercise Therapy
  • Urinary Incontinence, Stress
  • Fecal Incontinence
  • Pelvic Floor
  • Pelvic Floor Disorders
  • Muscle Contraction
Keywords
  • Exercise Therapy
  • Fecal Incontinence
  • Pelvic Floor Muscle Training
  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse
  • Urinary Incontinence
Contact
Organisation Name: Ontario Health
Contact Address: 525 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3
Contact Name: HealthInnovationPathway@ontariohealth.ca
Contact Email: HealthInnovationPathway@ontariohealth.ca
Copyright: The copyright for all Ontario Health publications is owned by the King’s Printer for Ontario. Materials may be reproduced for commercial purposes only under a licence from the King’s Printer. For further information or to request a licence to reproduce content, please contact: Senior Copyright Advisor Publications Ontario | 416-326-5153 | Copyright@Ontario.ca
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.