Is biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training superior to pelvic floor muscle training alone in the treatment of dysfunctional voiding in women? A prospective randomized study

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and PFMT alone on voiding parameters in women with dysfunctional voiding (DV). Materials and Methods: The patients in group 1 (34 patients) were treated with biofeedback-assisted PFMT, and the patients in group 2 (34 patients) were treated with PFMT alone for 12 weeks. The 24-hour frequency, average voided volume, maximum urine flow rate (Q(max)), average urine flow rate (Q(ave)), post-void residual urine volume (PVR), and the validated Turkish Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) symptom scores were recorded before and after 12 weeks of treatment. Results: At the end of treatment sessions, the Q(max) and Q(ave) values of the patients in group 1 were significantly higher than those in group 2, and the PVR in the patients in group 1 was significantly lower than those in group 2 (p=.026, .043, and .023, respectively). The average UDI-6 symptom scores of the patients in group 1 were significantly lower than those in group 2 (p=.034). Electromyography activity during voiding, in group 1 was significantly lower than in group 2 (41.2 vs. 64.7, respectively, p=.009). Conclusion: Biofeedback-assisted PFMT is more effective than PFMT alone in improving clinical symptoms, uroflowmetry parameters, and EMG activity during voiding.