Pelvic floor muscle training is better than hypopressive exercises in pelvic organ prolapse treatment: An assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Aims: To verify if hypopressive exercises (HEs) can improve pelvic organ prolapse (POP) symptoms equally or better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). Methods: Randomized controlled trial. Symptomatic women with untreated stage II POP according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP‐Q) having the ability to contract their pelvic floor muscles were invited. The outcome measures were POP symptoms as measured by specific questions and Prolapse Quality of Life (P‐QoL); POP severity as measured by POP‐Q; and PFM function. Intervention consisted by 12 weeks of PFMT or an HE home exercise program with bimonthly sessions with a physiotherapist. The protocol consisted of three initial sessions to learn how to perform the exercises correctly, followed by 3 months of exercise with monthly progression. Volunteers filled out exercise diaries to record their compliance. Results: PFMT presented better results in terms of the following symptoms: a bulge/lump from or in the vagina, heaviness or dragging on the lower abdomen, and stress incontinence. PFMT also presented better results regarding the Prolapse impact and role, social and personal limitations of P‐QoL. Regarding the total number of symptoms at the end, the PFMT group presented a mean of 1.7 (±1.2), and the HE group presented a mean of 2.8 (±1,1); the effect size was 1.01 in favor of the PFMT group (95%CI = 1.002‐1.021). Conclusion: Both groups exhibited improvements in POP symptoms, quality of life, prolapse severity, and PFM function. PFMT was superior to HE for all outcomes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The use of hypopressive techniques has shown no proven efficacy to date.
“The use of hypopressive techniques, to date, has shown no proven efficacy [56,57].”
From Pelvic Floor Muscle Training Following Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Recommendation from Scientific Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [56]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 67
- Authors
- Resende, A. P. M., Bernardes, B. T., Stüpp, L., Oliveira, E., Castro, R. A., Girão, M. J. B. C., & Sartori, M. G. F.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (BR)
- Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Resende, Ana Paula M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neurourology and Urodynamics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-10-12
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 171-179
- ISSN
- 0733-2467 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6777
- OpenAlex
- W2896712608
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 4.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neurourology and Urodynamics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2007/08246‐8)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
- Keywords
- pelvic floor muscle training, hypopressive exercises, pelvic organ prolapse, pelvic floor muscle function, stress urinary incontinence, home exercise program, physiotherapy, exercise adherence, POP-Q
- MeSH terms
- Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Urinary Incontinence, Stress, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review