| Literature DB >> 26498430 |
Magdalena Stania1, Daria Chmielewska2, Krystyna Kwaśna3, Agnieszka Smykla4, Jakub Taradaj5, Grzegorz Juras6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More and more frequently stress urinary incontinence affects young healthy women. Hence, early implementation of effective preventive strategies in nulliparous continent women is essential, including pelvic floor muscle training. An initial evaluation based on the bioelectrical activity of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) during whole-body vibration (WBV) would help to devise the best individualized training for prevention of stress urinary incontinence in woman. We hypothesized that synchronous WBV enhances bioelectrical activity of the PFM which depends on vibration frequency and peak-to-peak vibration displacement.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26498430 PMCID: PMC4619551 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-015-0103-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Urol ISSN: 1471-2490 Impact factor: 2.264
Characteristics of the study participants
| Group | Parameters of vibrations | Age [years] | Body mass [kg] | Height [cm] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean ± SD | mean ± SD | mean ± SD | ||
| I | 2 mm/20 Hz | 22.4 ± 1.6 | 63.5 ± 5.3 | 168.9 ± 2.3 |
| II | 4 mm/40 Hz | 21.8 ± 1.7 | 64.4 ± 6.2 | 167 ± 3.1 |
| III (control) | no vibrations | 22.7 ± 1 | 63.6 ± 6.7 | 167.8 ± 3.7 |
Fig. 1Diagram flow
Fig. 2Inter-trial comparison of mean normalized amplitude of the sEMG signal from the pelvic floor muscles (%MVC) in the study and control groups
Comparison of mean normalized amplitude of the sEMG signal from the pelvic floor muscles (%MVC) between the groups
| Mean amplitude (% MVC) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial | 30s trial | 60s trial | 90s trial | ||||
| Group | n | Mean (%) | SD | Mean (%) | SD | Mean (%) | SD |
| I (20Hz/2mm) | 12 | 34.41 | 6.96 | 37.33 | 9.02 | 38.41 | 9.61 |
| II (40Hz/4mm) | 10 | 47.43 | 17.04 | 43.70 | 13.03 | 48.67 | 15.56 |
| III (control) | 11 | 35.23 | 13.22 | 31.13 | 9.09 | 33.22 | 11.91 |
| pa(I/II/III) | 0.16 | 0.056 | 0.06 | ||||
| p (I/II) | 0.079 | 0.37 | 0.18 | ||||
| p (I/III) | 0.99 | 0.36 | 0.6 | ||||
| p (II/III) | 0.11 | 0.031 | 0.026 | ||||
pa - Friedman’s ANOVA
p - Tukey post hoc test
Fig. 3Inter-trial comparison of the normalized variability of pelvic floor muscle sEMG signal amplitude (%MVC) in the study and control groups. Horizontal bars with vertical dashes indicate statistically significant differences between duration of the trial at the same peak-to-peak displacement and frequency of vibration (p < 0.05)
Normalized variability of pelvic floor muscle sEMG signal amplitude in the study and control groups
| Variability of amplitude (% MVC) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial | 30s trial | 60s trial | 90s trial | ||||
| Group | n | Mean (%) | SD | Mean (%) | SD | Mean (%) | SD |
| I (20Hz/2mm) | 12 | 2.67 | 0.63 | 1.92 | 0.58 | 1.59 | 0.35 |
| II (40Hz/4mm) | 10 | 2.22 | 0.69 | 1.73 | 0.57 | 1.17 | 0.25 |
| III (control) | 11 | 2.58 | 0.37 | 1.94 | 0.66 | 1.39 | 0.46 |
| pa(I/II/III) | 0.23 | 0.87 | 0.055 | ||||
| p (I/II) | 0.21 | 0.77 | 0.043 | ||||
| p (I/III) | 0.93 | 0.99 | 0.43 | ||||
| p (II/III) | 0.36 | 0.73 | 0.39 | ||||
pa - Friedman’s ANOVA
p - Tukey post hoc test
Comparison of relative changes of mean and median frequency of the sEMG signal and mean amplitude of the PFMs between the groups
| Median Frequency [Hz] | Mean Amplitude [%MVC] | Mean Frequency [Hz] | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | n | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD |
| I | 12 | −5.15 | 7.42 | 0.69 | 4.7 | −3.47 | 7.2 |
| II | 11 | −2.77 | 6.07 | 0.66 | 0.8 | −4.22 | 5.79 |
| III | 10 | −3.67 | 4.85 | −0.18 | 3.18 | −4.26 | 7.83 |
| pa(I…III) | 0.86 | 0.45 | 0.99 | ||||
pa - Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA