Randomized Cross-over Comparison of Icon™ Reusable Underwear to Disposable Pads for the Management of Mild to Moderate Urinary Incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare disposable pads to Icon™ reusable underwear for the management of urinary incontinence on dimensions of quality of life and product performance.

METHODS: This randomized cross-over trial included women with mild to moderate urinary incontinence as defined by baseline responses to the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form. Excluded were patients who had fecal incontinence or an active urinary tract infection. Participants were randomized to 2 days of Icon™ underwear or disposable pads use and then completed another 2 days using the alternate product. Outcome measures were responses to Incontinence Quality of Life Instrument (I-QOL) and Product Performance Questionnaire for each product.

RESULTS: Of the 70 women who were randomized, 52 completed the study. There was no significant difference between Icon™ underwear and disposable pads with regards to I-QOL total scores (66.2 ± 23.4 vs 65.5 ± 24.5, P = 0.71) or I-QOL subscores: avoidance and limiting behaviors (62.1 ± 24.4 vs 62.4 ± 25.0, P = 0.88), psychosocial impacts (74.4 ± 25.0 vs 73.4 ± 25.6, P = 0.51), and social embarrassment (57.8 ± 27.8 vs 56.1 ± 29.5, P = 0.43). Icon™ underwear scored significantly better than disposable pads on the Product Performance Questionnaire, with regards to overall impression (P = 0.0002), fit (P < 0.0001), discreteness (P < 0.0001), comfort when dry (P < 0.0001), comfort when wet (P = 0.0008), ability to keep skin dry (P = 0.0034), and kindness to skin (P < 0.0001). There was no difference between products in ability to hold urine without leaking (P = 0.40) or prevent odor when worn (P = 0.41).

CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in quality of life measures between Icon™ underwear and disposable pad users; however, Icon™ underwear was preferred on product performance.