Helena Frawley1, Beth Shelly2,3, Melanie Morin4, Stéphanie Bernard5, Kari Bø6,7, Giuseppe Alessandro Digesu8, Tamara Dickinson9, Sanchia Goonewardene10, Doreen McClurg11, Mohammad S Rahnama'i12,13, Alexis Schizas14, Marijke Slieker-Ten Hove15,16, Satoru Takahashi17, Jenniffer Voelkl Guevara18. 1. School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 2. Beth Shelly Physical Therapy, Moline, Illinois, USA. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, Saint Ambrose University Davenport, Iowa, USA. 4. School of Rehabilitation Faculty of Medecine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada. 5. Department of Rehabilitation, Faculté de Médecine, Université Laval, Québec, Quebec, Canada. 6. Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Akershus University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Lørenskog, Norway. 8. Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Mary's Hospital, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 9. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 10. Department of Urology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK. 11. Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. 12. Uniklinik RWTH, University Hospital of Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 13. Society of Urological Research and Education (SURE), Heerlen, The Netherlands. 14. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Guy's and St. Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 15. Department Gynaecology, University of Erasmus, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 16. Pelvic Floor Physiotherapy, ProFundum Instituut, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 17. School of Medicine, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan. 18. Urology Department, University Hospital Fundación Sante Fé de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The terminology for female and male pelvic floor muscle (PFM) assessment has expanded considerably since the first PFM function and dysfunction standardization of terminology document in 2005. New terms have entered assessment reports, and new investigations to measure PFM function and dysfunction have been developed. An update of this terminology was required to comprehensively document the terms and their definitions, and to describe the assessment method and interpretation of the finding, to standardize assessment procedures and aid diagnostic decision making. METHODS: This report combines the input of members of the Standardisation Committee of the International Continence Society (ICS) Working Group 16, with contributions from recognized experts in the field and external referees. A logical, sequential, clinically directed assessment framework was created against which the assessment process was mapped. Within categories and subclassifications, each term was assigned a numeric coding. A transparent process of 12 rounds of full working group and external review was undertaken to exhaustively examine each definition, plus additional extensive internal development, with decision making by collective opinion (consensus). RESULTS: A Terminology Report for the symptoms, signs, investigations, and diagnoses associated with PFM function and dysfunction, encompassing 185 separate definitions/descriptors, has been developed. It is clinically based with the most common assessment processes defined. Clarity and user-friendliness have been key aims to make it interpretable by clinicians and researchers of different disciplines. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based Terminology Report for assessment of PFM function and dysfunction has been produced to aid clinical practice and be a stimulus for research.
INTRODUCTION: The terminology for female and male pelvic floor muscle (PFM) assessment has expanded considerably since the first PFM function and dysfunction standardization of terminology document in 2005. New terms have entered assessment reports, and new investigations to measure PFM function and dysfunction have been developed. An update of this terminology was required to comprehensively document the terms and their definitions, and to describe the assessment method and interpretation of the finding, to standardize assessment procedures and aid diagnostic decision making. METHODS: This report combines the input of members of the Standardisation Committee of the International Continence Society (ICS) Working Group 16, with contributions from recognized experts in the field and external referees. A logical, sequential, clinically directed assessment framework was created against which the assessment process was mapped. Within categories and subclassifications, each term was assigned a numeric coding. A transparent process of 12 rounds of full working group and external review was undertaken to exhaustively examine each definition, plus additional extensive internal development, with decision making by collective opinion (consensus). RESULTS: A Terminology Report for the symptoms, signs, investigations, and diagnoses associated with PFM function and dysfunction, encompassing 185 separate definitions/descriptors, has been developed. It is clinically based with the most common assessment processes defined. Clarity and user-friendliness have been key aims to make it interpretable by clinicians and researchers of different disciplines. CONCLUSION: A consensus-based Terminology Report for assessment of PFM function and dysfunction has been produced to aid clinical practice and be a stimulus for research.
Authors: José Antonio García-Mejido; Sara García-Pombo; Cristina Fernández-Conde; Carlota Borrero; Ana Fernández-Palacín; José Antonio Sainz-Bueno Journal: Tomography Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Daniëlle A van Reijn-Baggen; Henk W Elzevier; H Putter; Rob C M Pelger; Ingrid J M Han-Geurts Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.699
Authors: Supuni C Kapurubandara; Basia Lowes; Ursula M Sansom-Daly; Rebecca Deans; Jason A Abbott Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 1.932