James A Ashton-Miller1, Ruth Zielinski2, John O L DeLancey3, Janis M Miller. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. Electronic address: jaam@med.umich.edu. 2. University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. 3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurements of pelvic floor muscle strength are contaminated by crosstalk from intra-abdominal pressure. We tested an improved instrumented speculum designed to minimize this crosstalk. The hypotheses were that the speculum yields: 1) maximum vaginal closure forces unrelated to intra-abdominal pressure, 2) discriminatory validity between women with strong vs. weak pelvic floor muscles, and 3) acceptable test-retest reliability. METHODS: Maximum voluntary vaginal closure force was measured in 40 incontinent women (20-77 years) on two visits spaced one month apart. At the baseline visit, intra-abdominal pressure was also estimated via intra-vesical catheterization during the vaginal closure force measurement. Subjective estimate of pelvic floor muscle strength was also assessed using digital palpation by a skilled examiner to determine group placement as "strong" (n=31) or "weak" (n=9). FINDINGS: Vaginal closure force was not significantly correlated with intra-abdominal pressure (r=-.26, P=.109). The groups with subjectively scored strong and weak pelvic floor muscles differed significantly by mean [SD] maximum vaginal closure force (3.8 [1.7] vs. 1.9 [0.8] N respectively, P<.01.) Across both time points the mean vaginal closure force was 3.42 [1.67] N with a range of .68 to 9.05 N. Mean Visit 1 and Visit 2 vaginal closure force scores did not differ (3.41 [1.8] and 3.42 [1.6] N, respectively). The vaginal closure force repeatability coefficient was 3.1N. INTERPRETATION: The improved speculum measured maximum vaginal closure force without evidence of crosstalk from intra-abdominal pressure, while retaining acceptable discriminant validity and repeatability.
BACKGROUND: Measurements of pelvic floor muscle strength are contaminated by crosstalk from intra-abdominal pressure. We tested an improved instrumented speculum designed to minimize this crosstalk. The hypotheses were that the speculum yields: 1) maximum vaginal closure forces unrelated to intra-abdominal pressure, 2) discriminatory validity between women with strong vs. weak pelvic floor muscles, and 3) acceptable test-retest reliability. METHODS: Maximum voluntary vaginal closure force was measured in 40 incontinent women (20-77 years) on two visits spaced one month apart. At the baseline visit, intra-abdominal pressure was also estimated via intra-vesical catheterization during the vaginal closure force measurement. Subjective estimate of pelvic floor muscle strength was also assessed using digital palpation by a skilled examiner to determine group placement as "strong" (n=31) or "weak" (n=9). FINDINGS: Vaginal closure force was not significantly correlated with intra-abdominal pressure (r=-.26, P=.109). The groups with subjectively scored strong and weak pelvic floor muscles differed significantly by mean [SD] maximum vaginal closure force (3.8 [1.7] vs. 1.9 [0.8] N respectively, P<.01.) Across both time points the mean vaginal closure force was 3.42 [1.67] N with a range of .68 to 9.05 N. Mean Visit 1 and Visit 2 vaginal closure force scores did not differ (3.41 [1.8] and 3.42 [1.6] N, respectively). The vaginal closure force repeatability coefficient was 3.1N. INTERPRETATION: The improved speculum measured maximum vaginal closure force without evidence of crosstalk from intra-abdominal pressure, while retaining acceptable discriminant validity and repeatability.
Authors: Noelani M Guaderrama; Charles W Nager; Jianmin Liu; Dolores H Pretorius; Ravinder K Mittal Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Daniel M Morgan; Gurpreet Kaur; Yvonne Hsu; Dee E Fenner; Kenneth Guire; Janis Miller; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L Delancey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: John O L DeLancey; Daniel M Morgan; Dee E Fenner; Rohna Kearney; Kenneth Guire; Janis M Miller; Hero Hussain; Wolfgang Umek; Yvonne Hsu; James A Ashton-Miller Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Pamela S Fairchild; Lisa Kane Low; Katherine M Kowalk; Giselle E Kolenic; John O DeLancey; Dee E Fenner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Stefan Niederauer; Brian Cottle; Xiaoming Sheng; James Ashton-Miller; John Delancey; Robert Hitchcock Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Janis M Miller; Lisa Kane Low; Ruth Zielinski; Abigail R Smith; John O L DeLancey; Catherine Brandon Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Whitney Moss; Janet M Shaw; Meng Yang; Xiaoming Sheng; Robert Hitchcock; Stefan Niederauer; Diane Packer; Ingrid E Nygaard Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 1.913
Authors: Emily M English; Luyun Chen; Anne G Sammarco; Giselle E Kolenic; Wenjin Cheng; James A Ashton-Miller; John O DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Amanda C Amorim; Licia P Cacciari; Anice C Passaro; Simone R B Silveira; Cesar F Amorim; Jefferson F Loss; Isabel C N Sacco Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Janet M Shaw; Jie Wang; Xiaoming Sheng; Meng Yang; Stefan Niederauer; Robert Hitchcock Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 1.913