Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique

#346 Stress Urinary Incontinence: Pelvic floor exercises or pessary?

How effective are pelvic floor exercises or pessaries for stress urinary incontinence?

Pelvic floor exercises increase the proportion of women with symptom improvement (74% versus 11%) and patient satisfaction (71% versus 13%) compared to control over 1-6 months. Pessaries may reduce incontinence episodes compared to no treatment based on one small, 2-week study. Exercise may be slightly better than pessary at three months (example: more patients without bothersome symptoms) with less vaginal discharge at 12 months.

CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session

  • Results statistically different unless indicated. Focusing on systematic reviews from the last 10 years.
  • Pelvic floor exercises:
    • Largest systematic review, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 26-133 women, compared to no treatment/control.1 At 6-24 weeks:
      • Self-reported cure/improvement: 74% versus 11% (control), number needed to treat (NNT)=2.
      • Leakage (example baseline: 1-2 episodes/day):2 Reduced by one episode/day over control.
      • Patient satisfaction: 71% versus 13% (control), NNT=2.
    • Other systematic reviews and newer RCTs report similar.3-9
  • Pessaries:
    • Meta-analyses10-11 did not combine RCTs.
    • RCT, 55 women, pessary versus no treatment.12 After two weeks:
      • Total incontinence episodes reduced: 32% versus 7.6% (control).
      • Satisfaction (scale 0-100, higher=better): 60 versus 5 (control).
      • Limitations: Industry funded; baseline incontinence episodes imbalanced: 36 versus 58 (control) in two weeks before trial.
    • RCT, 446 women, pelvic floor exercises versus pessary:13
      • At 3 months:
        • Proportion without bothersome symptoms: 49% versus 33% (pessary), NNT=7.
        • Improved/much improved: Not different.
        • Satisfaction: 54% versus 50% (pessary), NNT=27.
        • Withdrawals due to adverse effects: No difference.
      • At 12 months:
        • No difference in above outcomes.
        • Vaginal discharge: 6% versus 16% (pessary), NNT=10.
      • Exercise plus pessary versus exercise alone: No difference.
      • Limitations: Pessary dropouts higher at 3 months, no different at 12 months.
    • Limitations: RCTs unblinded and outcomes often subjective.12,13

  • Pelvic floor exercises considered first-line.14
    • If supervised programs inaccessible, can provide written information15 or video16 to patients.
    • At least 8 contractions three times daily recommended.14
  • Pessaries:
    • Can last 5-10 years and be fitted in primary care.17,18
      • ~10-40% women have unsuccessful first fittings.13,19
    • Cost:17 $50-150.

Nasir Ayub August 8, 2023


Andrew chung August 9, 2023

good info

Abdul-Hamid Chehimi August 9, 2023

Pelvic floor exercise is the 1st line therapy for stress UI.

Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session

  • Samantha Moe PharmD
  • Anthony Train MBChB MSc CCFP

1. Dumoulin C, Cacciari LP, Hay-Smith EJC. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018: CD005654.

2. Asklund I, Nyström E, Sjöström M, et al. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017; 36(5):1369-76.

3. Stenzelius K, Molander U, Odeberg J. Age Ageing. 2015; 5:736-44.

4. Moroni RM, Magnani PS, Haddad JM, et al. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016; 38(2):97-111.

5. Nie XF, Ouyang YQ, Wang L, et al. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017; 138(3):250-5.

6. Garcia-Sanchez E, Avila-Gandia V, Lopez-Roman J, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(22).

7. Okayama H, Ninomiya S, Naito K, et al. Int Urogynecol J. 2019: 7:1093-99.

8. Al Belushi ZI, Al Kiyumi MH, AlMazuri AA, et al. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020; 39:5:1557-1566.

9. Kamali S, Ozengin N, Topcuoglu MA. Women Health. 2023; 63(6): 473-83.

10. Lipp A, Shaw C, Glavind K. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; CD001756.

11. Ayeleke Ro, Hay-Smith EJC, Omar MI. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015: CD010551.

12. Cornu JN, Mouly S, Amarenco G, et al. Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23(12): 1727-34.

13. Richter HE, Burgio KL, Brubaker L, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(3): 609-17.

14. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management. Available at: Accessed May 5, 2023.

15. The Canadian Continence Foundation. Incontinence Treatments. Available at:

16. MDConversation. Pelvic Floor Muscle Training. Available at: Accessed on July 2, 2023.

17. Ontario Health. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2021; 21(3): 1-155.

18. Bordman R, Telner D, Jackson B, et al. Can Fam Physician. 2007; 53(3): 485-7.

19. Harvey MA, Lemieux MC, Robert M, et al. JOGC. 2021; 411: 255-66.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.