OBJECTIVE: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is the first-line conservative treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI), but its effectiveness is often limited by poor adherence and performance. We developed a third-generation home-based PFMT device incorporating real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of this device in women with POP or SUI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective single-arm study was conducted at Taipei Veterans General Hospital. Women with stage I-II POP or SUI performed home-based PFMT using a noninvasive wireless pressure-sensing device with real-time AI-assisted assessment. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (M0), 1 (M1), and 2 (M2) months. Primary outcomes included the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6), Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7 (IIQ-7), and the 1-h pad test. Contraction patterns were analyzed and categorized as optimal or non-optimal. RESULTS: A total of 27 women (mean age 59.0 ± 14.3 years) were enrolled and completed the study. POPDI-6 decreased from 8.6 ± 2.6 to 5.2 ± 3.0 (p < 0.01), and UDI-6 from 6.4 ± 4.9 to 3.4 ± 3.4 (p < 0.05). The 1-h pad test decreased from 30.9 ± 41.9 g to 14.3 ± 23.5 g (p < 0.01); IIQ-7 reduction was also significant. Subjective and objective improvement rates were 89% and 54%, respectively. Physician-directed pattern optimization significantly improved contraction patterns, with 52.9% of patients converting from non-optimal to optimal patterns and increased the optimal contraction rate from 37.0% to 70.4% (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Real-time AI-assisted PFMT significantly improved symptom scores, objective urinary leakage, and contraction quality in women with POP or SUI. While limited by a small sample size, a short follow-up period, and a single-arm design, this approach effectively identifies and optimizes dysfunctional contraction patterns to enhance pelvic floor rehabilitation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Horng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: