Isherwood P J, Rane A
Department of Urogynaecology, Kirwan Hospital for Women, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
BJOG. 2000 Aug;107(8):1007-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb10404.x.
To determine whether digital assessment of pelvic floor contraction strength is as reliable as vaginal perineometry and to assess the practice of pelvic floor exercises by women.
A blinded, two-assessor protocol, prospectively testing a volunteer sample of women.
Two hundred and sixty-three women (from a total of 278), aged 16-75 years, attending a general gynaecological clinic with nonurinary symptoms.
Participants answered a questionnaire regarding urinary symptoms and practice of pelvic floor exercises. History and examination was carried out by the clinician, and pelvic floor strength scored digitally using the Oxford Scale. Pelvic floor strength was then assessed by the physiotherapist, using a PFX perineometer. The physiotherapist was blinded to the woman's history, examination findings and digital assessment score. Both the clinician and physiotherapist were blinded to the questionnaire responses.
Digital pelvic floor contraction assessment, according to the Oxford Scale, was compared with perineometric assessment as the gold standard - examined against the background of the questionnaire findings.
Of 263 patients, 53 were nulliparous (20%), and 210 parous (80%). Only 49 women carried out regular pelvic floor exercises (19%), and all were parous and admitted to troublesome urinary symptoms. Stress urinary incontinence was reported by 28% of all women (38.1% of parous women and 10.5% of nulliparous women). For both methods, there was no difference in the range of results when parity was taken into account. Concordance studies showed good agreement between digital and perineometric assessment of pelvic floor strength. The kappa value of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.67-0.79) indicated substantial agreement between the two methods.
There is good agreement between digital assessment of pelvic floor contraction strength and vaginal perineometry. Assessment during gynaecological examination may help to identify women with fascial defects of the pelvic floor, as well as those at risk of genital prolapse or urinary symptoms.
确定盆底收缩力量的数字评估是否与阴道会阴压力测定一样可靠,并评估女性盆底肌锻炼的情况。
一项双评估者的盲法方案,对女性志愿者样本进行前瞻性测试。
263名女性(共278名),年龄在16 - 75岁之间,因非泌尿系统症状前往普通妇科门诊就诊。
参与者回答了一份关于泌尿系统症状和盆底肌锻炼情况的问卷。临床医生进行病史询问和检查,并使用牛津量表对盆底力量进行数字评分。然后,物理治疗师使用PFX会阴压力计评估盆底力量。物理治疗师对该女性的病史、检查结果和数字评估分数不知情。临床医生和物理治疗师都对问卷回答不知情。
以牛津量表进行的数字盆底收缩评估与作为金标准的会阴压力测定评估进行比较——在问卷结果的背景下进行检查。
263名患者中,53名未生育(20%),210名已生育(80%)。只有49名女性定期进行盆底肌锻炼(19%),且均为已生育女性,并承认有泌尿系统症状困扰。所有女性中有28%报告有压力性尿失禁(已生育女性中为38.1%,未生育女性中为10.5%)。对于两种方法,考虑到产次时结果范围没有差异。一致性研究表明,盆底力量的数字评估和会阴压力测定评估之间具有良好的一致性。kappa值为0.73(95%置信区间0.67 - 0.79)表明两种方法之间有实质性的一致性。
盆底收缩力量的数字评估与阴道会阴压力测定之间具有良好的一致性。妇科检查期间的评估可能有助于识别盆底筋膜缺陷的女性,以及有生殖器脱垂或泌尿系统症状风险的女性。