| Objective:To investigate the efficacy of electrostimulation plus biofeedback in the treatment of chronic pelvic pain syndrome,and to provide a basis for its promotion in clinical practice.Methods:A total of 90 patients with CPPS who were treated in our hospital from October 2017 to October 2019 were selected and divided into three groups by stratified blocked randomization.Among them,30 patients in the biofeedback treatment group adopted Kegel training,30 min / time,2 times / week,a total of 4 weeks;30 patients in the electrical stimulation treatment group adopted a percutaneous and vaginal electrode stimulation scheme,30 min / time,2 times / week,a total of 4 weeks;30 patients in the electrostimulation plus biofeedback treatment group(hereinafter referred to as the combined group)adopted Kegel training and electrical stimulation alternately,30 min / time,2 times / week,for a total of 4 weeks.The average age of the three groups of patients at the time of treatment,the course of the disease before the consultation,the number of pregnancy and delivery,Visual Analogy Scale(VAS),and the Glazer evaluation results of the pelvic floor muscles were collected to compare the curative effect of the three groups.Results:1.There was no statistically significant difference in the age,course of disease,pregnancy,parity,VAS score and Glazer assessment of the myoelectric mean of the three groups before treatment(P> 0.05).2.Comparison of results within the three groups after treatment(1)Biofeedback treatment group: The VAS score decreased from(7.40±1.07)to(3.67±1.93),which was statistically significant compared with the pre-treatment score(P <0.05).According to the evaluation criteria of efficacy,4 cases were completely remission,19 cases were partial remission,and 7 cases were ineffective.The complete remission rate and effective rate were 13.3% and 76.7%,respectively.During the Glazer assessment,the EMG values of the anterior and posterior resting stages were respectively decreased(3.55±3.10 (1)?(3.74±2.25 (1),and the EMG values of the rapid contraction,continuous contraction,and endurance contraction stages were increased(9.75±7.99 (1)?(5.90±3.44 (1)and(5.37±4.04 (1),the changes in EMG values at various stages before and after treatment were statistically significant(P <0.05).(2)Electrical stimulation treatment group: The VAS score decreased from(7.43±1.01)to(3.53±1.98),which was statistically significant compared with the pre-treatment score(P <0.05).According to the evaluation criteria of curative effect,5 cases were completely relieved,19 cases were partially relieved,and 5 cases were ineffective.The complete remission rate and effective rate were 17.2% and 82.8%,respectively.In the Glazer assessment,the EMG values of the anterior and posterior resting phases decreased(2.79±2.21 (1)and(3.11±1.43 (1)respectively,and the EMG values of the rapid contraction,continuous contraction,and endurance contraction phases increased respectively(5.80±8.52 (1)?(3.26±4.00 (1)?(4.40±4.27 (1),the changes in EMG values at various stages before and after treatment were statistically significant(P <0.05).(3)Electrostimulation plus biofeedback treatment group: The VAS score decreased from(7.47±1.25)to(1.90±1.83),which was statistically significant compared with before treatment(P <0.05).According to the evaluation standard of curative effect,13 cases had complete remission,15 cases had partial remission,and 1 case was ineffective.The complete remission rate and effective rate were 44.8% and 96.6%,respectively.In the Glazer assessment,the EMG values of the anterior and posterior resting phases were lower than those of the anterior(4.97 ±2.81 (1)and(5.28 ±1.81 (1)respectively,and the EMG values of the rapid contraction,continuous contraction,and endurance contraction phases were respectively increased(14.82±8.60 (1),(10.34 ± 4.28 (1),(9.49 ± 4.73 (1),the changes in EMG values at various stages before and after treatment were statistically significant(P <0.05).3.Comparison of results among the three groups after treatment(1)Comparison of VAS among three groups: the reduction in pain VAS score of the combined group was better than that of the electrical stimulation group and the biofeedback group,and the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05).There was no significant difference between the electrical stimulation group and the biofeedback group(P> 0.05).(2)Comparison of the Effective rate among three groups: There was no statistically significant difference among the three groups(P> 0.05).(3)Comparison of complete remission rate among the three groups: the complete remission rate of the combined group was significantly higher than that between the two groups,and the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05);the difference between the electrical stimulation group and the biofeedback group was not statistically significant(P> 0.05).(4)Comparison of Glazer assessment results of the three groups of patients: the changes in the EMG values of the Glazer assessment in the combined group were better than the electrical stimulation group and the biofeedback group,the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05);: There was no statistically significant difference between the pre-rest phase and the continuous contraction phase(P> 0.05).The changes in the myoelectric value of the biofeedback group in the remaining phases were better than those in the electrical stimulation group,and the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05).Conclusion:1.Biofeedback,electrical stimulation,and electrostimulation plus biofeedback therapy can reduce the myoelectric potential of the pelvic floor muscles in the pre-resting and post-resting phase,and increase the myoelectric potential during the contraction phase,but electrostimulation plus biofeedback therapy is significantly better than monotherapy.2.The three treatment methods can alleviate the pain symptoms of CPPS in a short period of time.The biofeedback combined with electrical stimulation is more effective,and the complete remission rate is higher without obvious adverse effects.It is a worthwhile option for treating CPPS. |
PDF Full Text Request