Özge Çeliker Tosun1, Damla Korkmaz Dayıcan2, İrem Keser3, Sefa Kurt4, Meriç Yıldırım1, Gökhan Tosun5. 1. Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey. 2. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey. kkorkmazdamla@gmail.com. 3. Institute of Health Sciences, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tepecik Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Various positions for pelvic floor muscle (PFM) relaxation are recommended during PFM training in physiotherapy clinics. To our knowledge, there is no study addressing the most effective position for PFM and abdominal muscle relaxation. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate the effect of different relaxation positions on PFM and abdominal muscle functions in women with urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: Sixty-seven women diagnosed with UI were enrolled in the study. The type, frequency, and amount of UI were assessed with the International Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form and bladder diary. Superficial electromyography was used to assess PFM and abdominal muscle functions during three relaxation positions: modified butterfly pose (P1), modified child pose (P2), and modified deep squat with block (P3). Friedman variance analyses and Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferroni corrections were used to evaluate the difference between positions. RESULTS: The most efficient position for PFM relaxation was P1 and followed by P3 and P2, respectively. The order was also the same for abdominal muscles (p < 0.001), P1 > P3 > P2. The rectus abdominis (RA) was the most affected muscle during PFM relaxation. The extent of relaxation of RA muscle increased as the extent of PFM relaxation increased (r = 0.298, p = 0.016). No difference was found between different types of UI during the same position in terms of PFM relaxation extents (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Efficient PFM relaxation is maintained during positions recommended in physiotherapy clinics. The extent of PFM and abdominal muscle relaxation varies according to the positions.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Various positions for pelvic floor muscle (PFM) relaxation are recommended during PFM training in physiotherapy clinics. To our knowledge, there is no study addressing the most effective position for PFM and abdominal muscle relaxation. Therefore, the current study aimed to investigate the effect of different relaxation positions on PFM and abdominal muscle functions in women with urinary incontinence (UI). METHODS: Sixty-seven women diagnosed with UI were enrolled in the study. The type, frequency, and amount of UI were assessed with the International Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form and bladder diary. Superficial electromyography was used to assess PFM and abdominal muscle functions during three relaxation positions: modified butterfly pose (P1), modified child pose (P2), and modified deep squat with block (P3). Friedman variance analyses and Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonferroni corrections were used to evaluate the difference between positions. RESULTS: The most efficient position for PFM relaxation was P1 and followed by P3 and P2, respectively. The order was also the same for abdominal muscles (p < 0.001), P1 > P3 > P2. The rectus abdominis (RA) was the most affected muscle during PFM relaxation. The extent of relaxation of RA muscle increased as the extent of PFM relaxation increased (r = 0.298, p = 0.016). No difference was found between different types of UI during the same position in terms of PFM relaxation extents (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Efficient PFM relaxation is maintained during positions recommended in physiotherapy clinics. The extent of PFM and abdominal muscle relaxation varies according to the positions.
Authors: Kari Bo; Helena C Frawley; Bernard T Haylen; Yoram Abramov; Fernando G Almeida; Bary Berghmans; Maria Bortolini; Chantale Dumoulin; Mario Gomes; Doreen McClurg; Jane Meijlink; Elizabeth Shelly; Emanuel Trabuco; Carolina Walker; Amanda Wells Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894