Kadah Shaza, Soh Sze-Ee, Morin Melanie, Schneider Michal, Heron Emma, Frawley Helena
Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3199, Australia.
Department of Physical Therapy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.
J Sex Med. 2023 Jan 14;20(1):65-96. doi: 10.1093/jsxmed/qdac002.
Alterations in pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function have been observed in women with persistent noncancer pelvic pain (PNCPP) as compared with women without PNCPP; however, the literature presents conflicting findings regarding differences in PFM tone between women with and without PNCPP.
To systematically review the literature comparing PFM tone in women with and without PNCPP.
MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus were searched from inception to June 2021 for relevant studies. Studies were included that reported PFM tone data in women aged ≥18 years with and without PNCPP. The risk of bias was assessed with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) for PFM tone measures were calculated via random effects models.
Resting PFM tone parameters, including myoelectrical activity, resistance, morphometry, stiffness, flexibility, relaxation, and intravaginal pressure, measured by any clinical examination method or tool.
Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven PFM tone parameters were measured. Meta-analyses were conducted for myoelectrical activity, resistance, and anterior-posterior diameter of the levator hiatus. Myoelectrical activity and resistance were higher in women with PNCPP than in women without (SMD = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.36-2.29] and SMD = 2.05 [95% CI, 1.03-3.06], respectively). Women with PNCPP also had a smaller anterior-posterior diameter of the levator hiatus as compared with women without (SMD = -0.34 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.16]). Meta-analyses were not performed for the remaining PFM tone parameters due to an insufficient number of studies; however, results of these studies suggested greater PFM stiffness and reduced PFM flexibility in women with PNCPP than in women without.
Available evidence suggests that women with PNCPP have increased PFM tone, which could be targeted by treatments.
A comprehensive search strategy was used with no restriction on language or date to review studies evaluating PFM tone parameters between women with and without PNCPP. However, meta-analyses were not undertaken for all parameters because few included studies measured the same PFM tone properties. There was variability in the methods used to assess PFM tone, all of which have some limitations.
Women with PNCPP have higher PFM tone than women without PNCPP; therefore, future research is required to understand the strength of the relationship between pelvic pain and PFM tone and to investigate the effect of treatment modalities to reduce PFM tone on pelvic pain in this population.
与无持续性非癌性盆腔疼痛(PNCPP)的女性相比,有PNCPP的女性盆底肌(PFM)功能存在改变;然而,关于有无PNCPP的女性之间PFM张力差异的文献结果相互矛盾。
系统回顾比较有无PNCPP的女性PFM张力的文献。
检索MEDLINE、Embase、Emcare、CINAHL、PsycINFO和Scopus数据库,从建库至2021年6月查找相关研究。纳入报告了年龄≥18岁有无PNCPP女性PFM张力数据的研究。使用美国国立心肺血液研究所质量评估工具评估偏倚风险。通过随机效应模型计算PFM张力测量的标准化平均差异(SMD)。
静息PFM张力参数,包括通过任何临床检查方法或工具测量的肌电活动、阻力、形态测量、硬度、柔韧性、松弛度和阴道内压力。
21项研究符合纳入标准。测量了7个PFM张力参数。对肌电活动、阻力和提肌裂孔前后径进行了Meta分析。有PNCPP的女性肌电活动和阻力高于无PNCPP的女性(SMD分别为1.32[95%CI,0.36 - 2.29]和SMD为2.05[95%CI,1.03 - 3.06])。与无PNCPP的女性相比,有PNCPP的女性提肌裂孔前后径也较小(SMD = -0.34[95%CI,-0.51至-0.16])。由于研究数量不足,未对其余PFM张力参数进行Meta分析;然而,这些研究结果表明,有PNCPP的女性比无PNCPP的女性PFM硬度更大,柔韧性更低。
现有证据表明,有PNCPP的女性PFM张力增加,这可能是治疗的靶点。
采用了全面的检索策略,对语言或日期无限制,以回顾评估有无PNCPP的女性之间PFM张力参数的研究。然而,并非对所有参数都进行了Meta分析,因为纳入研究中很少有测量相同的PFM张力特性。评估PFM张力的方法存在差异,所有这些方法都有一些局限性。
有PNCPP的女性比无PNCPP的女性PFM张力更高;因此,需要未来的研究来了解盆腔疼痛与PFM张力之间关系的强度,并研究降低PFM张力的治疗方式对该人群盆腔疼痛的影响。