Levator ani syndrome

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

In patients with highly likely LAS, biofeedback reduced pain days per month from 14.7 to 3.3 and pain intensity from 6.8 to 1.8 on a 0-10 scale, both significantly greater reductions than EGS or massa

Effect: improvement; Pain days: 14.7 baseline to 3.3 after biofeedback vs 8.9 EGS vs 13.3 massage. VAS: 6.8 to 1.8 biofeedback vs 4.7 EGS vs 6.0 massage.

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure

Patients with only a possible diagnosis of LAS (no tenderness on palpation) did not benefit from biofeedback, EGS, or massage on any primary or secondary outcome measure.

Effect: null; No significant treatment benefit on any outcome measure