Literature DB >> 28716538

Reliability of pelvic floor muscle electromyography tested on healthy women and women with pelvic floor muscle dysfunction.

Irene Koenig1, Helena Luginbuehl2, Lorenz Radlinger3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Electromyography (EMG) is a well-established method to quantify the relative pelvic floor muscle (PFM) activity. PFM EMG has shown good reliability in healthy women. However, its reliability has not been tested in women with PFM dysfunction. The reliability of EMG analysis methods concerning EMG normalization needs to be determined to assess specific therapeutic interventions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the intra-session reliability of PFM EMG variables by using 3 different analysis methods in women with PFM dysfunction.
METHODS: EMG data analysis involved women who were healthy, had weak PFM and had stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We evaluated the reliability of EMG during rest and maximum voluntary contraction and compared muscle activity onset by visual determination and by calculation. All variables were checked for normality (Shapiro-Wilk). Descriptive statistics (mean, SD), systematic error within repeated measures (Wilcoxon) and reliability indexes were tested and presented descriptively (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], standard error of measurement [SEM], SEM%, minimal difference [MD], MD%).
RESULTS: For 20 women who were healthy, 17 with weak PFM and 50 with SUI, ICC values were high for all variables (0.780-0.994), and SEM and MD values were relatively high (SEM%: 7.5-15.7; MD%: 21.0-43.8).
CONCLUSION: We need reliable methods to analyse clinical intervention studies. PFM EMG variables had high ICCs, but relatively high SEM and MD values modified the reliability. All EMG analysis methods were comparable in healthy women, but only the visual-onset determination was dependable in women with PFM dysfunction.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analysis; Female; Pelvic floor; Reproducibility

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28716538     DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2017.04.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Phys Rehabil Med        ISSN: 1877-0657


  6 in total

Review 1.  Modern Theories of Pelvic Floor Support : A Topical Review of Modern Studies on Structural and Functional Pelvic Floor Support from Medical Imaging, Computational Modeling, and Electromyographic Perspectives.

Authors:  Yun Peng; Brandi D Miller; Timothy B Boone; Yingchun Zhang
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Electromyography of pelvic floor muscles with true differential versus faux differential electrode configuration.

Authors:  Claudia Ballmer; Patric Eichelberger; Monika Leitner; Helene Moser; Helena Luginbuehl; Annette Kuhn; Lorenz Radlinger
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Mini-Trampoline Jumping as an Exercise Intervention in Postmenopausal Women to Improve Women Specific Health Risk Factors.

Authors:  Anja Fricke; Philip W Fink; Toby Mundel; Sally D Lark; Sarah P Shultz
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2021-01-19

4.  Surface electromyography of the pelvic floor at 6-8 weeks following delivery: a comparison of different modes of delivery.

Authors:  Kai-Min Guo; Lang-Chi He; Yan Feng; Liu Huang; Abraham Nick Morse; Hui-Shu Liu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 1.932

5.  Reliability of pelvic floor muscle surface electromyography (sEMG) recordings during synchronous whole body vibration.

Authors:  Daria Chmielewska; Grzegorz Sobota; Paweł Dolibog; Patrycja Dolibog; Agnieszka Opala-Berdzik
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Electromyographic Evaluation of the Pelvic Muscles Activity After High-Intensity Focused Electromagnetic Procedure and Electrical Stimulation in Women With Pelvic Floor Dysfunction.

Authors:  Silantyeva Elena; Zarkovic Dragana; Soldatskaia Ramina; Astafeva Evgeniia; Mekan Orazov
Journal:  Sex Med       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 2.491

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.