SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • urinary incontinence;
  • vaginal device;
  • acceptability;
  • effectiveness

Objective To compare two versions of the same type of disposable intravaginal device (the Conveen Continence Guard, CCG, and the Contrelle Continence Tampon, CCT, Coloplast a/s, Humlebæk, Denmark) for treating stress incontinence in women.

Patients and methods Women with the predominant symptom of stress incontinence were recruited from four centres in Denmark, Australia and the UK. The women were assessed using a 24-h pad-test, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine volume and a voiding diary before treatment, and after 5 weeks using each of the two devices. Vaginal swabs and specimens of urine were sent for culture, and a questionnaire about the subjective effect and adverse events completed at each visit. In all, 94 women were recruited, of whom 62 (66%) completed the study.

Results Both devices reduced the amount of leakage significantly, but the CCT reduced urine loss significantly more than the CCG. Uroflowmetry values and residual urine volume were unchanged when using the two devices. Vaginal culture showed no abnormality during the study period, and only one woman was treated for a urinary tract infection. Side-effects were few and not serious. The women found both devices easy to prepare, insert and use; two-thirds preferred the CCT to the CCG.

Conclusion The new intravaginal device (CCT) is more effective for treating stress incontinence than the currently available version (CCG), and patient acceptability of the new device seems to be superior.