Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the effect of internet-based home treatment with electrical stimulation plus biofeedback training on pelvic floor rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Subjects (315 in total) were selected from patients with pelvic floor dysfunction who were diagnosed from October 2022 to June 2023. A home rehabilitation group (n = 178, receiving the Internet-based home treatment with electrical stimulation plus biofeedback training) and an in-hospital rehabilitation group (n = 137, treated with electrical stimulation plus biofeedback training in hospital) were set up. RESULTS: After treatment, differences of statistical significance in POP-Aa, POP-Ba, POP-Gh, POP-Ap, POP-Bp, muscle potential, type I muscle fiber, type II muscle fiber, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6) subscale score, Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory-8 (CRADI-8) subscale score, and Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6) subscale score were observed in the home rehabilitation group compared with those before treatment (p < 0.05). Significant differences were detected in the changes in POP-Ap, type I muscle fiber, and type II muscle fiber between the groups before and after treatment, and a greater decrease in POP-Ap and smaller increases in type I muscle fiber and type II muscle fiber were obtained from the home rehabilitation group after treatment in comparison with those from the in-hospital rehabilitation group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although the internet-based home treatment with electrical stimulation plus biofeedback training costs a longer time than in-hospital rehabilitation treatment, it can exert better therapeutic effects in terms of improving muscle potential, POP, and urinary symptoms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: