| Literature DB >> 27533267 |
Edilaine de Paula Batista Mendes1, Sonia Maria Junqueira Vasconcellos de Oliveira2, Adriana de Souza Caroci3, Adriana Amorim Francisco4, Sheyla Guimaraes Oliveira1, Renata Luana da Silva5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to compare the pelvic floor muscle strength in primiparous women after normal birth and cesarean section, related to the socio-demographic characteristics, nutritional status, dyspareunia, urinary incontinence, perineal exercise in pregnancy, perineal condition and weight of the newborn.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27533267 PMCID: PMC4996086 DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.0926.2758
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem ISSN: 0104-1169
Mean pelvic floor muscle strength according to childbirth type, sociodemographic characteristics, nutritional status, urinary incontinence, dyspareunia, perineal exercise, perineal condition and weight of the newborn. Itapecerica da Serra, SP, Brazil, 2014
| Variable | PFMS * (cmH2O) | p-valor | |||||
| Normal birth | Cesarian section | ||||||
| n | Mean (SD†) | n | Mean (SD) | ||||
| Age (years) | 0.390‡ | ||||||
| ≤ 19 | 28 | 26.0 (14.8) | 7 | 21.2 (12.9) | |||
| 20 - 24 | 28 | 26.4 (18.3) | 9 | 30.4 (16.1) | |||
| 25 - 29 | 11 | 21.1 (12.0) | 6 | 23.0 (17.3) | |||
| ≥ 30 | 5 | 5.5 (8.4) | 2 | 25.2 (3.1) | |||
| Skin collor | 0.406‡ | ||||||
| Mixed | 40 | 25.5 (15.9) | 14 | 26.5 (15.2) | |||
| White | 23 | 20.1 (15.6) | 7 | 25.8 (16.4) | |||
| Black | 8 | 30.6 (17.4) | 3 | 19.3 (10.4) | |||
| Yellow | 1 | 0.0 - | - | - | |||
| Education (years) | 0.036‡ | ||||||
| ≤ 8 | 10 | 26.8 (20.7) | 6 | 31.5 (10.8) | |||
| 9 - 11 | 57 | 21.9 (13.4) | 15 | 25.1 (16.2) | |||
| ≥ 12 | 5 | 42.0 (26.3) | 3 | 14.6(7.7) | |||
| Marital status | 0.339‡ | ||||||
| Living with partner | 55 | 23.1 (16.9) | 20 | 26.8 (14.2) | |||
| Does not live with partner | 10 | 25.9 (14.0) | 1 | 6.7 - | |||
| No partner | 7 | 27.7 (14.9) | 3 | 22.3 (19.3) | |||
| Remunerated employment | 0.767‡ | ||||||
| Yes | 41 | 24.9 (14.8) | 18 | 24.8 (11.5) | |||
| No | 31 | 23.3 (17.4) | 6 | 25.6 (15.9) | |||
| Nutritional status | 0.584‡ | ||||||
| Low weight | 5 | 23.4 (18.1) | 0 | - | |||
| Adequate | 43 | 23.9 (14.8) | 12 | 20.5 (10.0) | |||
| Overweight | 20 | 23.1 (15.4) | 7 | 25.6 (20.0) | |||
| Obesity | 4 | 29.1 (34.6) | 5 | 36.9 (11.6) | |||
| ICU during pregnancy | 0.296‡ | ||||||
| Yes | 67 | 19.9 (20.1) | 14 | 27.0 (14.9) | |||
| No | 29 | 25.4 (14.5) | 10 | 24.3 (15.0) | |||
| ICU after delivery | 0.894‡ | ||||||
| Yes | 59 | 22.4 (20.8) | 20 | 25.0 (14.4) | |||
| No | 13 | 24.3 (15.2) | 4 | 25.5 (15.1) | |||
| UI that persists for two months postpartum (n=17) | 0.448‡ | ||||||
| Yes | 6 | 12.2 (9.9) | 3 | 21.9 - | |||
| No | 7 | 34.4 (24.5) | 1 | 26.0 (17.5) | |||
| Dyspareunia (n=77) | 0.361‡ | ||||||
| Yes | 30 | 24.3 (17.3) | 10 | 24.8 (14.6) | |||
| No | 28 | 21.5 (13.1) | 9 | 29.3 (14.6) | |||
| Perineal exercise during pregnancy | 0.010‡ | ||||||
| Yes | 42.6 (25.4) | 2 | 11.8 (4.9) | ||||
| No | 22.6 (14.7) | 22 | 26.7 (14.7) | ||||
| Perineal condition | 0.677§ | ||||||
| Intact | 11 | 23.5 (16.2) | |||||
| First degree laceration | 22 | 27.5(14.7) | |||||
| Second degree laceration | 11 | 21.0 (13.5) | |||||
| Third degree laceration | 1 | 8.8 - | |||||
| Episiotomy | 27 | 23.0 (15.2) | |||||
| Weight of newborn | 0.732‡ | ||||||
| ≤ 3,500 | 57 | 23.7 (16.4) | 14 | 26.2 (14.7) | |||
| > 3,500 | 15 | 24.8 (16.0) | 10 | 24.3 (15.5) | |||
* Pelvic floor muscle strength
†Standard deviation ‡ Two-way ANOVA § ANOVA
|| Incontinence
Figure 2Interaction between education level and the type of delivery on pelvic floor muscle strength (PFMS). Itapecerica da Serra, SP, Brazil, 2014
Figure 3Interaction between the perineal exercise in pregnancy and delivery type on pelvic floor muscle strength (PFMS). Itapecerica da Serra, SÃO PAULO, Brazil, 2014