Display Settings:


Send to:

Choose Destination
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003 Aug;14(3):199-203; discussion 203. Epub 2003 Jul 9.

A randomized controlled trial of the NEAT expandable tip continence device.

Author information

  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada. her10@telusplanet.net


Urethral devices are one conservative management option for stress and mixed urinary incontinence, but there is little published data about their use. The aims of this study were to assess the safety and efficacy of a new urethral device (NEAT) and compare it with the Reliance Insert. The ease of use of both devices was then evaluated. Twenty-four women with mixed or stress urinary incontinence, patients at our tertiary care urogynecology unit and who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were enrolled in the study. Study subjects were blinded and randomly assigned to a device group. Device efficacy was assessed by pad weighing at 0 and 4 months. Success was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in urine loss using the formula 100[(pad weight without device -pad weight with device)/pad weight with device]. Safety was evaluated using urinalysis and urine cultures. Ease of use assessment scales were also completed. Eleven patients were randomized to the Reliance Insert and 13 to the NEAT device. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, height, weight, duration of incontinence, pad weight, leakage score, parity or quality of life score. Based on the pad weight success formula, there was no significant difference in device success between the two groups at 4 months. Women who were postmenopausal had a trend towards a higher level of success in reduction of their pad weight. Previous treatment, diagnosis and hormone replacement therapy all had no relationship to device success. Leakage score data showed that subjects had a significant decrease in urine leakage when using either device. There was no statistically significant difference in ease of use between the two devices. Adverse symptoms most commonly noted were awareness of the device (62.5%), urgency (29.2%), and urethral discomfort or pain (20.8%). One urinary tract infection (UTI) was observed. The most common finding on urinalysis was trace hematuria (15.8%). Our conclusions are that the NEAT device appears to be at least as effective and safe as the Reliance Insert. Both devices are effective at decreasing urine leakage in patients with stress or mixed urinary incontinence. The risk of UTI is low, but these devices may cause trace hematuria.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk