Department of Physiotherapy, Podiatry, Prosthetics and Orthotics, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
, Melbourne, Australia.
Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Sep;33(9):2435-2444. doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-05003-6. Epub 2021 Nov 26.
Clinical assessment of the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) in a standing position may provide a more valid representation of PFM function experienced by patients in daily life than assessment in the lying position. The primary aim of this study was to examine PFM function in a standing versus a lying position in parous women with any type of urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse.
In this exploratory cross-sectional study, participant symptom status was determined using the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire. Pelvic floor muscle function was assessed in standing and lying positions with a randomised order of testing. The primary outcome measure was vaginal squeeze pressure (VSP) using intra-vaginal manometry. Secondary outcomes included vaginal resting pressure, total PFM work and digital muscle testing. The difference between PFM function in a standing position compared with a lying position was analysed using paired t test or Wilcoxon's signed rank test.
Vaginal squeeze pressure assessed with manometry was higher in a standing than in a lying position (p = 0.001): standing (mean [SD]) 24.90 [12.67], lying 21.15 [14.65]. In contrast, PFM strength on digital muscle testing was lower in a standing position than in a lying position.
This study has demonstrated that PFM function in a standing position is different from that in a lying position in women with pelvic floor dysfunction. Whether the higher VSP observed in a standing position reflects a true difference in strength between positions, or a higher pressure reading due to incorrect PFM contraction technique in a standing position is uncertain. Further research with larger cohorts and a measurement tool that can accurately distinguish a rise in intra-vaginal pressure from PFM contraction rather than increasing intra-abdominal pressure is required to confirm this difference, and the clinical significance of any difference.
在站立位评估盆底肌(PFMs)可能比在卧位评估更能真实反映患者日常生活中 PFMs 的功能。本研究的主要目的是检查有任何类型尿失禁和/或盆腔器官脱垂的经产妇在站立位和卧位时的 PFMs 功能。
在这项探索性的横断面研究中,使用澳大利亚盆腔器官脱垂/尿失禁问卷(Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire,POP-Q/UI-SF)确定参与者的症状状态。采用随机测试顺序评估站立位和卧位时的盆底肌功能。主要结局测量指标是阴道内压力测量(intra-vaginal manometry,IVM)的阴道收缩压(VSP)。次要结局指标包括阴道静息压、总 PFMs 功和数字肌肉测试。采用配对 t 检验或 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验分析站立位与卧位时 PFMs 功能的差异。
IVM 评估的阴道收缩压在站立位高于卧位(p=0.001):站立位(平均值[标准差])24.90[12.67],卧位 21.15[14.65]。相比之下,数字肌肉测试时 PFMs 力量在站立位比卧位低。
本研究表明,在患有盆底功能障碍的女性中,站立位时的 PFMs 功能与卧位不同。站立位时观察到的更高 VSP 是由于位置之间的力量差异,还是由于站立位时 PFMs 收缩技术不正确导致的更高压力读数尚不确定。需要进一步研究更大的队列,并使用可以准确区分阴道内压力升高与 PFMs 收缩而不是增加腹腔内压力的测量工具来确认这种差异,以及任何差异的临床意义。