Sally Mastwyk1, Jodie McClelland2, Melinda Mary Cooper3, Helena C Frawley4,5,6. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, Podiatry, Prosthetics and Orthotics, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. s.mastwyk@latrobe.edu.au. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, Podiatry, Prosthetics and Orthotics, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. 3. , Melbourne, Australia. 4. Melbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Allied Health Research, The Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Allied Health Research, Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Clinical assessment of the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) in a standing position may provide a more valid representation of PFM function experienced by patients in daily life than assessment in the lying position. The primary aim of this study was to examine PFM function in a standing versus a lying position in parous women with any type of urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: In this exploratory cross-sectional study, participant symptom status was determined using the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire. Pelvic floor muscle function was assessed in standing and lying positions with a randomised order of testing. The primary outcome measure was vaginal squeeze pressure (VSP) using intra-vaginal manometry. Secondary outcomes included vaginal resting pressure, total PFM work and digital muscle testing. The difference between PFM function in a standing position compared with a lying position was analysed using paired t test or Wilcoxon's signed rank test. RESULTS: Vaginal squeeze pressure assessed with manometry was higher in a standing than in a lying position (p = 0.001): standing (mean [SD]) 24.90 [12.67], lying 21.15 [14.65]. In contrast, PFM strength on digital muscle testing was lower in a standing position than in a lying position. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that PFM function in a standing position is different from that in a lying position in women with pelvic floor dysfunction. Whether the higher VSP observed in a standing position reflects a true difference in strength between positions, or a higher pressure reading due to incorrect PFM contraction technique in a standing position is uncertain. Further research with larger cohorts and a measurement tool that can accurately distinguish a rise in intra-vaginal pressure from PFM contraction rather than increasing intra-abdominal pressure is required to confirm this difference, and the clinical significance of any difference.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Clinical assessment of the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) in a standing position may provide a more valid representation of PFM function experienced by patients in daily life than assessment in the lying position. The primary aim of this study was to examine PFM function in a standing versus a lying position in parous women with any type of urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: In this exploratory cross-sectional study, participant symptom status was determined using the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire. Pelvic floor muscle function was assessed in standing and lying positions with a randomised order of testing. The primary outcome measure was vaginal squeeze pressure (VSP) using intra-vaginal manometry. Secondary outcomes included vaginal resting pressure, total PFM work and digital muscle testing. The difference between PFM function in a standing position compared with a lying position was analysed using paired t test or Wilcoxon's signed rank test. RESULTS: Vaginal squeeze pressure assessed with manometry was higher in a standing than in a lying position (p = 0.001): standing (mean [SD]) 24.90 [12.67], lying 21.15 [14.65]. In contrast, PFM strength on digital muscle testing was lower in a standing position than in a lying position. CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that PFM function in a standing position is different from that in a lying position in women with pelvic floor dysfunction. Whether the higher VSP observed in a standing position reflects a true difference in strength between positions, or a higher pressure reading due to incorrect PFM contraction technique in a standing position is uncertain. Further research with larger cohorts and a measurement tool that can accurately distinguish a rise in intra-vaginal pressure from PFM contraction rather than increasing intra-abdominal pressure is required to confirm this difference, and the clinical significance of any difference.
Authors: Diane F Borello-France; Victoria L Handa; Morton B Brown; Patricia Goode; Karl Kreder; Laura L Scheufele; Anne M Weber Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2007-03-06