| Literature DB >> 24877094 |
Carla Dellabarba Petricelli1, Ana Paula Magalhães Resende2, Julio Elito Júnior1, Edward Araujo Júnior1, Sandra Maria Alexandre1, Miriam Raquel Diniz Zanetti1, Mary Uchiyama Nakamura1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the role of the pelvic floor muscles between nulliparous and multiparous women in the third trimester of pregnancy, by analyzing the relationship between electrical activity (surface electromyography-EMG), vaginal palpation (modified Oxford scale), and perineal distensibility (Epi-no).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24877094 PMCID: PMC4020537 DOI: 10.1155/2014/437867
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Vaginal probe used for recording myoelectric activity.
Figure 2EMGLab1 software: exemplifying the selection of the best of three maximum voluntary contractions during the electromyography evaluation.
Patient distribution according to demographic characteristics.
| Variable | Group |
| Mean | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Median |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Nulliparous | 30 | 26.10 | 4.93 | 20.00 | 39.00 | 25.00 | 0.007* |
| Multiparous | 30 | 29.90 | 5.60 | 21.00 | 39.00 | 28.00 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Gestational age | Nulliparous | 30 | 36.50 | 1.28 | 35.00 | 39.00 | 36.00 | 0.677* |
| Multiparous | 30 | 36.63 | 1.18 | 35.00 | 39.00 | 36.50 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| BMI | Nulliparous | 30 | 27.06 | 3.77 | 20.58 | 37.36 | 26.04 | <0.001* |
| Multiparous | 30 | 31.79 | 5.33 | 23.31 | 44.53 | 30.52 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Number of pregnancies | Nulliparous | 30 | 1.26 | 0.58 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 1.00 | <0.001** |
| Multiparous | 30 | 2.60 | 0.93 | 2.00 | 5.00 | 2.00 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Number of abortions | Nulliparous | 30 | 0.26 | 0.58 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 0.991** |
| Multiparous | 30 | 0.30 | 0.70 | 0.00 | 3.00 | 0.00 | ||
BMI: body mass index.
*Student's t-test; **Mann-Whitney.
Comparison of the values found using the modified Oxford scale, surface EMG during maximum voluntary contraction, and Epi-no.
| Variable | Group |
| Mean | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | Median |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oxford | Nulliparous | 30 | 2.53 | 0.57 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 0.005* |
| Multiparous | 30 | 2.06 | 0.64 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 2.00 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| sEMG MVC | Nulliparous | 30 | 45.35 | 12.24 | 17.27 | 69.09 | 47.86 | 0.003** |
| Multiparous | 30 | 35.79 | 11.66 | 17.07 | 61.49 | 36.55 | ||
|
| ||||||||
| Epi-no | Nulliparous | 30 | 18.05 | 2.14 | 13.50 | 23.00 | 17.75 | 0.013** |
| Multiparous | 30 | 19.39 | 1.92 | 16.50 | 24.00 | 19.00 | ||
sEMG MVC: surface electromyography during maximum voluntary contraction.
*Mann-Whitney; **Student's t-test.
Comparison between the findings on the modified Oxford scale between surface EMG during maximum voluntary contraction and Epi-no.
| Variable | Modified Oxford scale | Significance ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Median sEMG MVC ( | 31.31 (6) | 37.09 (30) | 49.98 (24) | 0.008* |
| Median Epi-no ( | 18.50 (6) | 18.75 (30) | 18.75 (24) | 0.785* |
sEMG MVC: surface electromyography during maximum voluntary contraction.
*Kruskal-Wallis.
Figure 3Correlation of the evaluation methods: positive between surface EMG and the modified Oxford scale and absence of relationship between the data from Epi-no and from the other methods.