Search

AimsTreatment for urinary incontinence (UI) includes pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). There is limited data appraising the characteristics of PFMT devices. We aimed to ascertain the primary use, strengths and weaknesses of PFMT devices available online, through evaluation of consumer reviews.MethodsWe performed an analysis of PFMT devices on Amazon.com. Four key device categories were recognized. Reviews from the five most frequently-reviewed products per category were analyzed (n = 20). W characterized device use, strengths and weaknesses using thematic analysis.ResultsWe evaluated 2574 PFMT device reviews including 1168 vibrating Kegel balls, 750 non-vibrating Kegel balls, 411 pelvic floor or thigh exercisers, and 245 electric probes. Non-vibrating Kegel balls were rated highest (4.6/5 stars), followed by vibrating Kegel balls, electric probes and pelvic floor or thigh exercisers (4.4/5, 4.1/5, and 3.8/5 stars, respectively). Most reviews were positive (77%) or negative (16%) with few neutral (7%). While all were marketed to treat UI, most reviews did not mention the intended use. Vibrating and non-vibrating Kegel balls and electric probes were most likely to be used for UI, and pelvic floor or thigh exercisers for toning. Some used non-vibrating and vibrating Kegel balls for sexual function. Electric probes were the most beneficial device for incontinence control (27%, 67/245). Twenty-five percent of all product reviews praised device ease of use and good quality or design. A minority of reviewers found products difficult to use, of poor quality or design and uncomfortable.ConclusionConsumers utilized online PFMT devices for multiple purposes, including UI, toning and sexual function. Reviewers generally praised PFMT products, particularly electric probes for UI.

AimsPenile clamps offer an alternative to manage male urinary incontinence in patients who are unfit for surgery. Patient experience with penile clamps is poorly understood. Our study elucidates patient opinions on commercially available penile clamps and the factors that associate with favorable and unfavorable opinions.MethodsWe collected Amazon reviews of all penile clamps marketed for male urinary incontinence from November 2011 to January 2020 and qualitatively assessed the overall sentiment towards penile clamps, key praises and key complaints. Covariates such as designated Amazon star rating were further explored for association with coding patterns.ResultsAmazon reviews of penile clamps were found to be more positive (n = 425) in overall sentiment than negative (n = 294). The most frequent praise was effective incontinence control (n = 334) and the most frequent complaint was bad design or material (n = 166). The majority of reviews were for lower priced penile clamps, had higher Amazon star ratings, were written for Wiesner-produced clamps, and were written more recently (i.e., 2015-2020). Penile clamps with higher Amazon star ratings were more often coded positive and with a praise compared to lower rated penile clamps.ConclusionsPenile clamps are seen favorably by users as an effective treatment modality for male urinary incontinence. User reviews suggest opportunities for improvement in penile clamp design. The most frequently reviewed clamp seen positively is the Wiesner Incontinence Clamp Penile Clamp whereas the most frequently reviewed clamp seen negatively is the Pacey Cuff Male Incontinence Device.

AimsVoiding positions and preferences in men are not well characterized. In this study, we aim to understand the interplay of voiding characteristics and their impact on voiding position.MethodsWe designed a 27-item survey to assess voiding characteristics and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) severity in men seen in urology and other outpatient clinics. Participants included adult men patients and adult men accompanying patients at our institution's outpatient clinics. Data collected included demographics, International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire, stream type (single, split, and dribble), voiding behavior, positional stream quality, and voiding bother.ResultsWe received 195 completed surveys (80% response rate). Of men queried, 18% (35/195) preferred to sit while voiding. Overall, men who sit had a higher proportion of LUTS (66% [23/35] vs. 41% [66/160]; p = .01), more physical limitations affecting voiding choice (20% [7/35] vs. 3% [5/160]; (p = .001), and a lower desire to stand (6% [2/35] vs. 24% [38/160]; p = .02), compared to men who stand. Men who sit while voiding reported nearly double the amount of voiding associated bother (34% [12/35]) compared to men who stand (18% [28/160]; p = .04). Older aged men reported a similar rate of seated urination compared to younger men. The most common reasons to void seated included comfort and avoidance of spraying.ConclusionsOur findings discourage the use of anecdotal beliefs founded on generalizable characteristics, such as age and stream type, to infer a patient's voiding characteristics. Open dialog with patients regarding voiding preferences may garner important information regarding overall urologic health and better inform urologic care.