The Effects of a Genital Vibratory Stimulation Device on Sexual Function and Genital Sensation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a genital vibratory stimulation device in improving sexual function in women with arousal and orgasm disorders. METHODS: In this single-arm, prospective study, baseline and 1- and 3-month assessments were performed to evaluate women with sexual arousal and/or orgasmic disorders, who received therapy using a genital vibratory stimulation device. Sexual function, satisfaction, and distress were evaluated using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), the Female Sexual Distress Scale, and the Female Intervention Efficacy Index questionnaires. Genital sensation was evaluated using quantitative sensory testing. RESULTS: Seventy women, aged 19 to 64 years, were evaluated from October 2009 to August 2013. Forty-seven (67.1%) and 37 (52.9%) women completed 1- and 3-month follow-ups, respectively. The FSFI arousal and orgasm domain scores and total FSFI scores improved at 1 and 3 months (P < 0.001 for all outcomes). Mean (SD) total FSFI scores increased from 20.04 (4.65) (baseline) to 25.03 (5.21) (1 month) to 26.66 (5.42) (3 months; both Ps < 0.0001). Female Sexual Distress Scale scores reflected significantly decreased distress at 1 (P = 0.0006) and 3 (P < 0.0001) months compared with baseline and at 3 months compared with 1 month (P = 0.03). Neurological sensation was increased at all genital sites at 1 and 3 months (P < 0.0001 for all). After adjustment for age, there was a significant interaction between arousal domain scores and clitoral and right labial sensation. At 3 months, perceptions of increased vaginal lubrication, orgasm, and genital sensation were reported by 67.5%, 65.0%, and 82.5% of the participants. No major adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Genital vibratory stimulation device use resulted in uniform improvements in sexual function, satisfaction, sexually related distress and genital sensation.

Effect of Supervised Pelvic Floor Biofeedback and Electrical Stimulation in Women With Mixed and Stress Urinary Incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the symptomatic change in urinary symptom distress before and after treatment with pelvic floor biofeedback and electrical stimulation in women with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent supervised pelvic floor biofeedback therapy and electrostimulation for the treatment of MUI and SUI. Our primary outcome was change in the Urinary Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6) score before and after therapy. RESULTS: Overall, a significant drop in UDI-6 score was seen in women with MUI (mean decrease, 29.1 [27.5]; P < 0.001), and a nonsignificant drop was seen in women with SUI (mean decrease, 6.8 [20.3]; P = 0.07) after treatment. Significantly greater change in UDI-6 score from baseline to follow-up was noted in women with MUI compared with those with SUI (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Women with MUI have greater urinary distress symptoms than women with SUI. Both women with MUI and SUI experienced significant improvement in their urinary distress symptoms after pelvic floor biofeedback and electrostimulation.