| Literature DB >> 27353519 |
Deniz Karcaaltincaba1, Salim Erkaya2, Hatice Isik3, Ali Haberal4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of vaginal and caesarean delivery on internal and external anal sphincter muscle thickness using translabial ultrasonography (TL-US).Entities:
Keywords: Anal sphincter; postpartum; pregnancy; translabial ultrasonography
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27353519 PMCID: PMC5536623 DOI: 10.1177/0300060516653066
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Med Res ISSN: 0300-0605 Impact factor: 1.671
Figure 1.Representative images from translabial ultrasonography of the distal anal sphincter before delivery: (a) measurement of the internal anal sphincter on the axial plane between + and + at the 12, 3, 6 and 9 o’clock positions; and (b) measurement of the external anal sphincter on the axial plane between + and + at the 12, 3, 6 and 9 o’clock positions. PVM, pubovisceral muscle.
Figure 2.Representative images from translabial ultrasonography of the distal anal sphincter after delivery: (a) At the anterior region (12 o’clock position) showing the internal anal sphincter () and the external anal sphincter () on the axial plane after vaginal delivery; and (b) at the anterior region (12 o’clock position) showing the internal anal sphincter () and the external anal sphincter () on the axial plane after caesarean delivery.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of healthy nulliparous women (n = 97) who underwent either vaginal or caesarean delivery in this prospective cohort study.
| Characteristic | Vaginal delivery group | Caesarean delivery group |
|---|---|---|
| Maternal age, years | 24.6 ± 5.2 | 25.8 ± 6.5 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 27.3 ± 3.0 | 28.7 ± 2.9 |
| Weight gain, kg | 13.4 ± 4.1 | 15.1 ± 5.8 |
| Gestational age of baby, weeks | 39.2 ± 1.2 | 39.4 ± 1.3 |
| Birth weight of baby, g | 3281 ± 313 | 3325 ± 478 |
Data presented as mean ± SD.
No significant between-group differences (P ≥ 0.05); independent samples t-test.
Measurements of the internal anal sphincter muscle thickness before and after delivery in healthy nulliparous women (n = 97) who underwent either vaginal or caesarean delivery.
| Position | Vaginal delivery group | Caesarean delivery group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Statistical significance[ | Before | After | Statistical significance[ | |
| 12 o’clock, mm | 2.31 ± 0.74 | 1.81 ± 0.64 | 2.46 ± 0.80 | 2.14 ± 1.33 | NS | |
| 3 o’clock, mm | 2.48 ± 0.54 | 2.35 ± 0.69 | NS | 2.32 ± 0.74 | 2.28 ± 0.60 | NS |
| 6 o’clock, mm | 2.37 ± 0.57 | 2.30 ± 0.82 | NS | 2.33 ± 0.58 | 2.27 ± 0.74 | NS |
| 9 o’clock, mm | 2.71 ± 0.60 | 2.40 ± 0.77 | NS | 2.54 ± 0.70 | 2.52 ± 0.73 | NS |
Data presented as mean ± SD.
Paired-samples t-test was used to compare the measurements before and after delivery.
NS, no significant difference between before and after delivery (P ≥ 0.05).
Measurements of the external anal sphincter muscle thickness before and after delivery in healthy nulliparous women (n = 97) who underwent either vaginal or caesarean delivery.
| Position | Vaginal delivery group | Caesarean delivery group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Statistical significance[ | Before | After | Statistical significance[ | |
| 12 o’clock, mm | 2.42 ± 0.64 | 1.97 ± 0.85 | 2.40 ± 0.76 | 2.23 ± 0.82 | NS | |
| 3 o’clock, mm | 2.93 ± 1.07 | 2.87 ± 0.99 | NS | 2.97 ± 0.62 | 2.60 ± 0.86 | NS |
| 6 o’clock, mm | 3.10 ± 0.90 | 2.84 ± 0.94 | NS | 3.05 ± 0.84 | 2.92 ± 0.93 | NS |
| 9 o’clock, mm | 3.17 ± 0.85 | 3.06 ± 1.04 | NS | 3.20 ± 0.76 | 3.02 ± 0.77 | NS |
Data presented as mean ± SD.
Paired-samples t-test was used to compare the measurements before and after delivery.
NS, no significant difference between before and after delivery (P ≥ 0.05).