Perineal InjuryNCT07730372
TECAR in the Management of Early Postpartum Perineal Pain.
A study testing TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer in people with Perineal Injury and Perineal Pain, run by Medical University of Gdansk at 1 site in Poland.
Trial summary
The study aimed to evaluate the effect of TECAR (Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer) therapy on the level of pain and discomfort in the pelvic floor in women after an episiotomy or perineal tears, during the first two days after a vaginal delivery and during the postpartum period. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Perineal Injury, Perineal Pain, Vaginal Delivery
- What is being tested?
- TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 182 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePoland
- Study dates
- 21 Jul 2022to 14 Sep 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- vaginal birth (including assisted brith - forcebs or vacuum)
- perineal injury (tear or episiotomy)
- presence of perineal pain
- no contraindications to TECAR therapy
Who cannot join
- cesarean cection
- perineal protection
- lack of pain
- contraindications to TECAR therapy: presence of electronic devices in the body, coagulation disorders (hemophilia, von Willebrand disease, use of anticoagulants), burns in the examined area, malignancy, severe hypertension or hypotension, and thrombophlebitis.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Use of TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer in the Management of Early Postpartum Perineal Pain in Women After Perineal Trauma.
The study aimed to evaluate the effect of TECAR (Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer) therapy on the level of pain and discomfort in the pelvic floor in women after an episiotomy or perineal tears, during the first two days after a vaginal delivery and during the postpartum period.
The primary outcome of this study was the change in pain level at rest, sitting, and walking measured at baseline, after each intervention, and weekly during the postpartum period, and compared across the INT, SHAM, and CON groups.
Read more
The secondary outcomes were:
- changes in perineal discomfort in sitting and walking, assessed at baseline, after each intervention, and weekly during the postpartum period, compared between the study groups;
- doses of paracetamol and ibuprofen administered in the first days after childbirth and in the subsequent weeks of the postpartum period, compared between the study groups;
- changes in ISI scores assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups;
- changes in pelvic floor muscle function, assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups.
The study was conducted among patients of the University Clinical Center Obstetrics Clinic. Overall 180 patients were included in the study (60 women in the study group, 60 in the control group, and 60 in the sham group). The study was conducted using a double-blind method. Women in the study group received therapy on the 1st and 2nd postpartum day using the Winback BACK 1S device, which emits radiofrequency waves. The treatment time was about 20 minutes. In the sham group, the same study protocol was carried out, but the device was in pause mode, so the patients did not know which group they belonged to throughout the trial. In the control group, recruited separatelt, there was no intervention and only an initial assessment of the pelvic floor and perineal pain. Pain and discomfort at rest, sitting, and walking were assessed before the intervention and two consecutive days after. In addition, a follow-up assessment 6-8 weeks after delivery was performed.
Read the detailed description
The study used the Winback Back S1 device (max. 100W, 500 and 300 kHz frequency), which operates in Resistive Energy Transfer (RET) and Capacitive Energy Transfer (CET) modes. To standardize participants' sensations and enhance blinding, a non-thermal current dose was predetermined at 10% intensity for RET and 20% for CET, based on application to the abdominal wall in 20 volunteers. Due to reduced intensity, the treatment duration was prolonged to match the therapeutic efficacy reported with shorter application times and higher intensities, as documented in previous studies on pelvic floor rehabilitation, sports physiotherapy, and data from the TECAR training program. Both the INT and SHAM groups received two TECAR sessions. The CON group underwent the same assessment as INT and SHAM, but was only observed without therapeutic intervention. This allowed for characterization of natural postpartum recovery and comparison with the other groups. Adverse events were assessed systematically after each treatment session by asking all participants about pain, discomfort, skin irritation, burns, or any other unexpected symptoms.
Data collected from participants encompassed both clinical and demographic information, such as age, body mass index (BMI), parity, and delivery-related factors. Information about the duration of the first and second stages of labor, type of pregnancy (singleton or multiple), use of vacuum extraction or forceps, classification of perineal trauma, newborn birthweight and length, fetal position at birth, and the method used for perineal suturing were recorded. The number and type of analgesics (eg, paracetamol, ibuprofen, or others) taken within the first 48 hours postpartum were recorded. The Incontinence Severity Index (ISI) was used to assess urinary incontinence severity, based on symptoms experienced at the end of pregnancy. ISI assesses two dimensions of urinary incontinence: the frequency of leakage (ranging from never = 0 points to every day = 4 points) and the amount of urine leakage (ranging from drops = 1 point to more than small splashes = 3 points).
A physiotherapist trained in pelvic floor health with at least 5 years of experience performed a visual observation of the perineum and a transvaginal pelvic floor muscle examination. This included assessing muscle strength using the Modified Oxford Scale (ranging from 0 to 5), measuring endurance (up to 10 seconds) and response speed (up to 10 rapid contractions), following the abbreviated PERFECT scheme.
Pain and perineal discomfort at rest, while sitting, and while walking were assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at three time points: before the intervention (baseline), and on the day following both the first (post1) and second (post2) intervention sessions. Participants in all groups received a take-home observation sheet for the six weeks of the postpartum period. They recorded the highest levels of perineal pain, discomfort, and the total number of analgesics taken, administered during each of the six postpartum weeks (puerperium1-6). Participants were informed about planned telephone and email communications to arrange the postpartum visit.
A follow-up visit was performed 6 to 8 weeks postpartum at the outpatient clinic, during which pelvic floor muscle function was re-evaluated. Participants were asked to provide information from the postpartum period, including ISI. Those unable to attend in person were asked to email their completed observation sheets.
Randomization was performed using the simple randomization method. The main researcher used a computer-generated random number sequence to allocate participants individually to either the intervention (INT) or SHAM group. Group assignments were concealed from both participants and study personnel involved in outcome assessment (double-blind design). The device did not have an in-built randomization function, and participants were blinded to group allocation until the end of the study. To ensure blinding during the intervention, the device was paused and covered from the participant's view. The control group (CON) was enrolled after recruitment of the INT and SHAM groups, thereby forming a distinct time cluster in the recruitment process without randomization to track the natural healing process.
The primary outcome of this study was the change in pain level at rest, sitting, and walking measured at baseline, after each intervention, and weekly during the postpartum period, and compared across the INT, SHAM, and CON groups.
The secondary outcomes were:
- changes in perineal discomfort in sitting and walking, assessed at baseline, after each intervention, and weekly during the postpartum period, compared between the study groups;
- doses of paracetamol and ibuprofen administered in the first days after childbirth and in the subsequent weeks of the postpartum period, compared between the study groups;
- changes in ISI scores assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups;
- changes in pelvic floor muscle function, assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups.
The sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome, which was the change in pain intensity. The required sample size was estimated using the G*Power software (version 3.1., University of Düsseldorf, Germany) for an F test (ANOVA: repeated measures, between factors) with three groups and two measurement points (before and after the intervention). The sample size calculation aimed to detect a 1.0 point clinically relevant difference (SD=1.5) with 90% power and a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming a medium effect size (f=0.25). The estimated minimum sample size was 52 participants per group (total n=156). With an anticipated 10% dropout rate, the required sample size increased to at least 58 participants per group (n=174). The dropout rate was approximately 50%. However, missing parameters were estimated using full information maximum likelihood (FIML), eliminating the need for data imputation. Therefore, drop-out cases did not result in the exclusion of participants from the analysis across the entire puerperium and did not significantly reduce statistical power. Statistical analyses were conducted using Python (pandas, stats models) and additional statistical software as needed. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For baseline comparisons between groups, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied for continuous variables. If the distribution significantly deviated from normality, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used as a non-parametric alternative. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.
- Conditions
- Perineal Injury, Perineal Pain, Vaginal Delivery, Instrumental Delivery, Episiotomy, Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy
- Being tested
- TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer, Sham TECAR
- Keywords
- pain, pelvic floor, postpartum, physiotherapy, radiofrequency
- Medical subject headings
- Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy TransferDevice
The study group received an intervention consisting of two phases on the first and second postpartum days. In the first phase, the CET low pulse mode was used for drainage purposes on the abdomen to stimulate the chyle cistern. The phase lasted 3 min and the applicator was applied three times at 6 points for 10 s. In the second phase, using an applicator on the perineum, two types of pulses were applied: RET and CET, both in the low-pulse mode. The RET mode was used for 5 min with circular movements (mobile function) in the perineal area. The CET mode was applied for 10 min with an immobilized applicator (static application). Participants received also standard postpartum care. Pain management consisted of ibuprofen (up to 1,200 mg/day) and paracetamol (up to 4,000 mg/day), administered as needed according to standard clinical practice. Cold packs were also recommended when indicated.
Sham TECARDevice
The sham group received the same intervention as the study group using a device paused, while still producing characteristic sounds. Participants received also standard postpartum care. Pain management consisted of ibuprofen (up to 1,200 mg/day) and paracetamol (up to 4,000 mg/day), administered as needed according to standard clinical practice. Cold packs were also recommended when indicated.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| INT | Experimental | Real TECAR intervention - two treatments Receives: Device: TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer |
| SHAM | Sham comparator | Sham TECAR intervention - two treatments Receives: Device: Sham TECAR |
| CON | No intervention | Control group with no intervention, recruited separately. Participants received standard postpartum care. Pain management consisted of ibuprofen (up to 1,200 mg/day) and paracetamol (up to 4,000 mg/day), administered as needed according to standard clinical practice. Cold packs were also recommended when indicated. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain level
Pain level at rest, while sitting, and while walking was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS; 0-10), with higher scores indicating greater pain. Changes in pain levels over time were compared between groups.
Measured: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the highest pain level weekly postpartum (from first to 6th week later).
Secondary outcomes (7)
Discomfort level
Discomfort (defined as an unpleasant sensation without pain) during sitting and walking was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS - from 0 to 10), with higher scores indicating greater discomfort. Changes in those levels over time compared between groups.
Measured: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the highest discomfort level weekly postpartum (from first to 6th week later).
Pain within the groups
Pain level at rest, in sitting and while walking using Numeric Rating Scale (from 0 to 10), with higher scores indicating greater pain. Changes in those levels over time within the groups.
Measured: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the highest pain level weekly postpartum (from first to 6th week later).
Analgesics intake
The total dose of paracetamol and ibuprofen in the measurement time-points. From 0 to 1200mg of ibuprofen and from 0 to 4000mg of paracetamol per 24 hours. A higher dose of medication means greater need, which translates to more pain and discomfort. Changes in medications intake over time between the groups.
Measured: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the total weekly dose of paracetamol and ibuprofen during all postpartum period (from week 1 to 6).
Incontinence Severity Index
Changes in ISI scores (from 1 to 12 scores) assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups. Higher scores indicate greater severity of urinary incontinence.
Measured: At baseline and 6-8 weeks postpartum.
Pelvic Floor Muscle Function
Changes in pelvic floor muscle function: strength (modified oxford scale, from 0 to 5), endurance (from 0 to 10s), fast contrations (from 0 to 10 repetitions), assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups. Higher scores across all described outcome measures indicate better pelvic floor muscle function.
Measured: At baseline and 6-8 weeks postpartum.
FSFI
Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) (from 2 to 36 scores), compared between the study groups. In FSFI the higher is the total score, the better sexual function is.
Measured: 6-8 weeks postpartum (in the follow-up assesment).
PISQ-IR
Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR) compared between the study groups. PISQ-IR does not have a single total score. Its scoring depends on whether the respondent is sexually active or not. Higher scores indicate better sexual function and/or less impact of pelvic floor disorders on sexual function (better condition-specific quality of life).
Measured: 6-8 weeks after intervention (follow-up).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted28 Jul 2026
- Study start21 Jul 2022
- Primary completion14 Sep 2023
- Study completion14 Sep 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Perineal InjuryStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Medical University of GdanskThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- This single-centre, pragmatic, superiority trial compared three parallel groups. Participants were randomized to either the intervention (INT) or sham (SHAM) group, while a separate no-intervention control group (CON) was recruited subsequently without randomization to observe the natural course of postpartum recovery. The study was conducted at a university-based centre. Randomization was performed using a computer-generated simple randomization sequence. The principal investigator individually allocated participants to either the INT or SHAM group after the first assesment to avoid bias. After completion of recruitment for the randomized groups, an additional no-intervention control group (CON) was recruited using the same eligibility criteria but without randomization. This group was included to describe the natural course of postpartum recovery over the study period.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 182 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Medical University of Gdansk
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Joanna Wojtas, Medical University of Gdansk
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07730372
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- NKBBN/380/2022
- Status last verified
- Jul 2026
- First submitted
- 15 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 28 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified individual IPD will be made available upon reasonable request, subject to approval by the corresponding author and in accordance with applicable ethical and data protection regulations.
Publications
Gonzalez-Gutierrez MD, Lopez-Garrido A, Cortes-Perez I, Obrero-Gaitan E, Leon-Morillas F, Ibanez-Vera AJ. Effects of Non-Invasive Radiofrequency Diathermy in Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Systematic Review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Mar 17;58(3):437. doi: 10.3390/medicina58030437.
PubMed 35334613Bretelle F, Fabre C, Golka M, Pauly V, Roth B, Bechadergue V, Blanc J. Capacitive-resistive radiofrequency therapy to treat postpartum perineal pain: A randomized study. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 27;15(4):e0231869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231869. eCollection 2020.
PubMed 32339169Sierenska J, Sotomska Z, Madej-Lukasiak D, Waz P, Grzybowska ME. The Use of Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer in Postpartum Pain Management in Women after Perineal Trauma. J Clin Med. 2023 Sep 20;12(18):6077. doi: 10.3390/jcm12186077.
PubMed 37763017
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Use of TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer in the Management of Early Postpartum Perineal Pain in Women After Perineal Trauma.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07730372
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- NKBBN/380/2022
- Conditions
- Perineal Injury, Perineal Pain, Vaginal Delivery, Instrumental Delivery, Episiotomy, Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy
- Keywords
- pain, pelvic floor, postpartum, physiotherapy, radiofrequency
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 182 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Medical University of GdanskUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 21 Jul 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 14 Sep 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 14 Sep 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 28 Jul 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The study aimed to evaluate the effect of TECAR (Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer) therapy on the level of pain and discomfort in the pelvic floor in women after an episiotomy or perineal tears, during the first two days after a vaginal delivery and during the postpartum period.
The primary outcome of this study was the change in pain level at rest, sitting, and walking measured at baseline, after each intervention, and weekly during the postpartum period, and compared across the INT, SHAM, and CON groups.
The secondary outcomes were:
- changes in perineal discomfort in sitting and walking, assessed at baseline, after each intervention, and weekly during the postpartum period, compared between the study groups;
- doses of paracetamol and ibuprofen administered in the first days after childbirth and in the subsequent weeks of the postpartum period, compared between the study groups;
- changes in ISI scores assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups;
- changes in pelvic floor muscle function, assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups.
The study was conducted among patients of the University Clinical Center Obstetrics Clinic. Overall 180 patients were included in the study (60 women in the study group, 60 in the control group, and 60 in the sham group). The study was conducted using a double-blind method. Women in the study group received therapy on the 1st and 2nd postpartum day using the Winback BACK 1S device, which emits radiofrequency waves. The treatment time was about 20 minutes. In the sham group, the same study protocol was carried out, but the device was in pause mode, so the patients did not know which group they belonged to throughout the trial. In the control group, recruited separatelt, there was no intervention and only an initial assessment of the pelvic floor and perineal pain. Pain and discomfort at rest, sitting, and walking were assessed before the intervention and two consecutive days after. In addition, a follow-up assessment 6-8 weeks after delivery was performed.
Detailed description
The study used the Winback Back S1 device (max. 100W, 500 and 300 kHz frequency), which operates in Resistive Energy Transfer (RET) and Capacitive Energy Transfer (CET) modes. To standardize participants' sensations and enhance blinding, a non-thermal current dose was predetermined at 10% intensity for RET and 20% for CET, based on application to the abdominal wall in 20 volunteers. Due to reduced intensity, the treatment duration was prolonged to match the therapeutic efficacy reported with shorter application times and higher intensities, as documented in previous studies on pelvic floor rehabilitation, sports physiotherapy, and data from the TECAR training program. Both the INT and SHAM groups received two TECAR sessions. The CON group underwent the same assessment as INT and SHAM, but was only observed without therapeutic intervention. This allowed for characterization of natural postpartum recovery and comparison with the other groups. Adverse events were assessed systematically after each treatment session by asking all participants about pain, discomfort, skin irritation, burns, or any other unexpected symptoms.
Data collected from participants encompassed both clinical and demographic information, such as age, body mass index (BMI), parity, and delivery-related factors. Information about the duration of the first and second stages of labor, type of pregnancy (singleton or multiple), use of vacuum extraction or forceps, classification of perineal trauma, newborn birthweight and length, fetal position at birth, and the method used for perineal suturing were recorded. The number and type of analgesics (eg, paracetamol, ibuprofen, or others) taken within the first 48 hours postpartum were recorded. The Incontinence Severity Index (ISI) was used to assess urinary incontinence severity, based on symptoms experienced at the end of pregnancy. ISI assesses two dimensions of urinary incontinence: the frequency of leakage (ranging from never = 0 points to every day = 4 points) and the amount of urine leakage (ranging from drops = 1 point to more than small splashes = 3 points).
A physiotherapist trained in pelvic floor health with at least 5 years of experience performed a visual observation of the perineum and a transvaginal pelvic floor muscle examination. This included assessing muscle strength using the Modified Oxford Scale (ranging from 0 to 5), measuring endurance (up to 10 seconds) and response speed (up to 10 rapid contractions), following the abbreviated PERFECT scheme.
Pain and perineal discomfort at rest, while sitting, and while walking were assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at three time points: before the intervention (baseline), and on the day following both the first (post1) and second (post2) intervention sessions. Participants in all groups received a take-home observation sheet for the six weeks of the postpartum period. They recorded the highest levels of perineal pain, discomfort, and the total number of analgesics taken, administered during each of the six postpartum weeks (puerperium1-6). Participants were informed about planned telephone and email communications to arrange the postpartum visit.
A follow-up visit was performed 6 to 8 weeks postpartum at the outpatient clinic, during which pelvic floor muscle function was re-evaluated. Participants were asked to provide information from the postpartum period, including ISI. Those unable to attend in person were asked to email their completed observation sheets.
Randomization was performed using the simple randomization method. The main researcher used a computer-generated random number sequence to allocate participants individually to either the intervention (INT) or SHAM group. Group assignments were concealed from both participants and study personnel involved in outcome assessment (double-blind design). The device did not have an in-built randomization function, and participants were blinded to group allocation until the end of the study. To ensure blinding during the intervention, the device was paused and covered from the participant's view. The control group (CON) was enrolled after recruitment of the INT and SHAM groups, thereby forming a distinct time cluster in the recruitment process without randomization to track the natural healing process.
The primary outcome of this study was the change in pain level at rest, sitting, and walking measured at baseline, after each intervention, and weekly during the postpartum period, and compared across the INT, SHAM, and CON groups.
The secondary outcomes were:
- changes in perineal discomfort in sitting and walking, assessed at baseline, after each intervention, and weekly during the postpartum period, compared between the study groups;
- doses of paracetamol and ibuprofen administered in the first days after childbirth and in the subsequent weeks of the postpartum period, compared between the study groups;
- changes in ISI scores assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups;
- changes in pelvic floor muscle function, assessed at baseline and at the 6-8 week follow-up, compared between the study groups.
The sample size was calculated based on the primary outcome, which was the change in pain intensity. The required sample size was estimated using the G*Power software (version 3.1., University of Düsseldorf, Germany) for an F test (ANOVA: repeated measures, between factors) with three groups and two measurement points (before and after the intervention). The sample size calculation aimed to detect a 1.0 point clinically relevant difference (SD=1.5) with 90% power and a two-sided α = 0.05, assuming a medium effect size (f=0.25). The estimated minimum sample size was 52 participants per group (total n=156). With an anticipated 10% dropout rate, the required sample size increased to at least 58 participants per group (n=174). The dropout rate was approximately 50%. However, missing parameters were estimated using full information maximum likelihood (FIML), eliminating the need for data imputation. Therefore, drop-out cases did not result in the exclusion of participants from the analysis across the entire puerperium and did not significantly reduce statistical power. Statistical analyses were conducted using Python (pandas, stats models) and additional statistical software as needed. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For baseline comparisons between groups, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied for continuous variables. If the distribution significantly deviated from normality, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used as a non-parametric alternative. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- This single-centre, pragmatic, superiority trial compared three parallel groups. Participants were randomized to either the intervention (INT) or sham (SHAM) group, while a separate no-intervention control group (CON) was recruited subsequently without randomization to observe the natural course of postpartum recovery. The study was conducted at a university-based centre. Randomization was performed using a computer-generated simple randomization sequence. The principal investigator individually allocated participants to either the INT or SHAM group after the first assesment to avoid bias. After completion of recruitment for the randomized groups, an additional no-intervention control group (CON) was recruited using the same eligibility criteria but without randomization. This group was included to describe the natural course of postpartum recovery over the study period.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| INT | Experimental | Device: TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy TransferReal TECAR intervention - two treatments |
| SHAM | Sham comparator | Device: Sham TECARSham TECAR intervention - two treatments |
| CON | No intervention | –Control group with no intervention, recruited separately. Participants received standard postpartum care. Pain management consisted of ibuprofen (up to 1,200 mg/day) and paracetamol (up to 4,000 mg/day), administered as needed according to standard clinical practice. Cold packs were also recommended when indicated. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- vaginal birth (including assisted brith - forcebs or vacuum)
- perineal injury (tear or episiotomy)
- presence of perineal pain
- no contraindications to TECAR therapy
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- cesarean cection
- perineal protection
- lack of pain
- contraindications to TECAR therapy: presence of electronic devices in the body, coagulation disorders (hemophilia, von Willebrand disease, use of anticoagulants), burns in the examined area, malignancy, severe hypertension or hypotension, and thrombophlebitis.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy TransferThe study group received an intervention consisting of two phases on the first and second postpartum days. In the first phase, the CET low pulse mode was used for drainage purposes on the abdomen to stimulate the chyle cistern. The phase lasted 3 min and the applicator was applied three times at 6 points for 10 s. In the second phase, using an applicator on the perineum, two types of pulses were applied: RET and CET, both in the low-pulse mode. The RET mode was used for 5 min with circular movements (mobile function) in the perineal area. The CET mode was applied for 10 min with an immobilized applicator (static application). Participants received also standard postpartum care. Pain management consisted of ibuprofen (up to 1,200 mg/day) and paracetamol (up to 4,000 mg/day), administered as needed according to standard clinical practice. Cold packs were also recommended when indicated. | Device | INT |
| Sham TECARThe sham group received the same intervention as the study group using a device paused, while still producing characteristic sounds. Participants received also standard postpartum care. Pain management consisted of ibuprofen (up to 1,200 mg/day) and paracetamol (up to 4,000 mg/day), administered as needed according to standard clinical practice. Cold packs were also recommended when indicated. | Device | SHAM |
Primary outcome
Pain level
Time frame: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the highest pain level weekly postpartum (from first to 6th week later).
Pain level at rest, while sitting, and while walking was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS; 0-10), with higher scores indicating greater pain. Changes in pain levels over time were compared between groups.
7 secondary outcomes
Discomfort level
Time frame: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the highest discomfort level weekly postpartum (from first to 6th week later).
Pain within the groups
Time frame: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the highest pain level weekly postpartum (from first to 6th week later).
Analgesics intake
Time frame: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the total weekly dose of paracetamol and ibuprofen during all postpartum period (from week 1 to 6).
Incontinence Severity Index
Time frame: At baseline and 6-8 weeks postpartum.
Pelvic Floor Muscle Function
Time frame: At baseline and 6-8 weeks postpartum.
FSFI
Time frame: 6-8 weeks postpartum (in the follow-up assesment).
PISQ-IR
Time frame: 6-8 weeks after intervention (follow-up).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 28 Jul 2026.
- Background: PubMed 35334613Gonzalez-Gutierrez MD, Lopez-Garrido A, Cortes-Perez I, Obrero-Gaitan E, Leon-Morillas F, Ibanez-Vera AJ. Effects of Non-Invasive Radiofrequency Diathermy in Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Systematic Review. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Mar 17;58(3):437. doi: 10.3390/medicina58030437.
- Background: PubMed 32339169Bretelle F, Fabre C, Golka M, Pauly V, Roth B, Bechadergue V, Blanc J. Capacitive-resistive radiofrequency therapy to treat postpartum perineal pain: A randomized study. PLoS One. 2020 Apr 27;15(4):e0231869. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231869. eCollection 2020.
- Results publication: PubMed 37763017Sierenska J, Sotomska Z, Madej-Lukasiak D, Waz P, Grzybowska ME. The Use of Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer in Postpartum Pain Management in Women after Perineal Trauma. J Clin Med. 2023 Sep 20;12(18):6077. doi: 10.3390/jcm12186077.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified individual IPD will be made available upon reasonable request, subject to approval by the corresponding author and in accordance with applicable ethical and data protection regulations.
Related trials for Perineal Injury
Recruiting
Improving Postpartum Quality of Life Through Enhanced Perineal Care Training
Postpartum Quality of Life, Peripartal Maternal Trauma
Not yet recruiting
Perineal Protection Device for Reducing Perineal Trauma During Vaginal Delivery in First-time Mothers: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Perineal Laceration
Enrolling by invitation
Effect of a Standardized Moisture-Care Protocol Using Skin Barrier Spray on Prevention of Pressure Injuries in the Perineal-Sacral Area Among Incontinent Inpatients: A 3-month Pilot Study.
Pressure Injury, Pressure Injury Prevention
Not yet recruiting
Ward-Level Implementation and Post-Market Clinical Follow-up Study of ASISU Under Routine Clinical Practice
Perineal Trauma
Not yet recruiting
THE EFFECT OF 360° VIDEO-ASSISTED TRAINING ON VERTICAL BIRTH POSITIONS IN PRIMIPAROUS WOMEN ON FEAR OF CHILDBIRTH, SELF-EFFICACY IN CHILDBIRTH, SATISFACTION WITH CHILDBIRTH, AND PERINEAL TRAUMA: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Childbirth
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing TECAR - Capacitive and Resistive Energy Transfer in people with Perineal Injury and Perineal Pain, run by Medical University of Gdansk at 1 site in Poland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 28 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Poland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain level (time frame: At baseline (up to 36 hours postpartum), the day after each intervention (second and third postpartum days), the highest pain level weekly postpartum (from first to 6th week later).). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07730372, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 28 Jul 2026.