Skip to main content
Log in

The Contiform incontinence device – efficacy and patient acceptability

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A consecutive series of 59 women with urodynamic stress incontinence but no prolapse were offered treatment with Contiform (available in small/medium/large sizes). The 24-h pad test was the primary outcome measure. Of the 59 enrolled women, 41 (69%) completed the trial protocol. Median use was 21 days (IQR 10–24.5). Two severity groups were categorized based on pretreatment pad testing (mild <30 g/day n=24 patients, 59%) and moderate/severe >30 g/day, n= 17(41%). Overall, loss was reduced by a median of 72% (5–92), p<0.0001, with the greatest reduction seen in the moderate/severe group of 85% (75–100) p<0.0001. No significant benefit on pad testing was noted in the mild group. Both groups showed significant benefit on the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire. The insertion technique was quickly learnt and the device well tolerated. A medium-sized Contiform was used by 33 (80%) women. No serious adverse events occurred.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Holst K, Wilson PD (1998) The prevalence of female urinary incontinence and reasons for not seeking treatment. NZ Med J 101:756–758

    Google Scholar 

  2. Biswas NC (1988) A Silastic vaginal device for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 7:271–272

    Google Scholar 

  3. Moore KH, Simons A, Dowell C, Bryant C, Prashar S (1999) Efficacy and user acceptability of the urethral occlusive device in women with urinary incontinence. J Urol 162:464–468

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hahn I, Milson I (1996) Treatment of female stress urinary incontinence with a new anatomically shaped vaginal device (Conveen Continence Guard). Br J Urol 77:711–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moore KH, Foote A, Burton G, King J (1999) An open study of the bladder neck support prosthesis in genuine stress incontinence Br J Obstet Gynecol 106:42–49

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. FDA original master file 7760, 5600 Fisher’s Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. www.fda.gov

  7. Prashar S, Simons A, Bryant C, Dowell C, Moore KH (2000) Attitudes to vaginal/urethral touching and device placement in women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 11:4–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Sullivan R, Yoong W, Allen W, Buckland S, Moore KH (2000) The repeatability and definition of mild, moderate and severe on the 24 hour pad test in 96 incontinent women. Neurourol Urodyn 19: 481–483

    Google Scholar 

  9. Versi E, Orrego G, Hardy E, Seddon G, Smith P, Anand D (1996) Evaluation of the home pad test in the investigation of female urinary incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 103:162–116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karantanis E, O’Sullivan R, Moore KH (2003) Normal values for the 24 hour pad test in continent women: the effects of exercise and hormonal status. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110:649–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Simons AM, Foote A, Moore K (2001) Quality of life assessment as an outcome measure in urinary incontinence research. A comparison of various quality of life and incontinence measures. Abstract. Int Urogynecol J 12(Suppl. 3):169

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12 item short form health survey. Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al. (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. H. Moore.

Additional information

Editorial Comment: Intravaginal and intraurethral devices have been utilized with variable but only modest success in managing women with stress urinary incontinence. Although future studies might focus on a prospective randomized study design comparing this device to other devices used for incontinence, the authors took the first appropriate step in prospectively determining the effects of the intervention both before and afterwards. It is interesting that only the group with more severe incontinence had an appreciable benefit. With the current study, this amounted to improvement in only 17 of the original 59 subjects, or 29% of subjects who used the device. None the less, the apparent ease of insertion and patient tolerance present this device as another possible option in the management of stress incontinence with minimal adverse effects.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morris, A.R., Moore, K.H. The Contiform incontinence device – efficacy and patient acceptability. Int Urogynecol J 14, 412–417 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-003-1094-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-003-1094-8

Keywords

Navigation