| Literature DB >> 35627446 |
Magdalena Piernicka1, Monika Błudnicka2, Damian Bojar3, Jakub Kortas4, Anna Szumilewicz1.
Abstract
Learning the correct technique of performing pelvic floor muscle (PFM) exercises is a very important factor influencing the effectiveness of this muscle group training. Correctly performed PFM contractions are involved in the urinary continence mechanism. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that a six-week high-low impact aerobics program, supported by one EMG biofeedback session and pelvic floor muscle training, improves the technique of PFM contraction. Participants were 42 active nulliparous women (age 22 ± 2 years, mean ± SD), randomly allocated into intervention (n = 18) and control (n = 24) groups. We analyzed the technique of PFM contractions, taking into account the order in which selected muscle groups were activated, so called 'firing order'. In both groups, we assessed the PFM contraction technique using surface electromyography (sEMG) and intravaginal probes, before and after six weeks of intervention. The intervention group received one biofeedback session on how to properly contract PFM and afterwards participated in a high-low impact aerobics program supplemented by PFM training. The control group did not receive any intervention. In the pre-test, 67% of the intervention group activated PFM first in order in short, quick contractions. After six weeks of training, this task was correctly performed by 100% of this group (p = 0.04). The proper performance of PFM short contraction in the control group was 75% and 67%, before and after intervention, respectively. In the intervention group we also observed statistically significant improvement in the PFM contraction technique in 10-s contractions. The presented intervention was beneficial for the improvement of PFM contraction. High-low impact aerobics, supplemented by one EMG biofeedback session and pelvic floor muscle training can be recommended for active nulliparous women.Entities:
Keywords: Kegel exercises; electromyography; exercise professionals; high impact activity; muscle onset; pelvic floor muscle contraction; urinary incontinence
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627446 PMCID: PMC9141367 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19105911
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1The flow of participants through the study.
Characteristics of the study participants.
| Variable at Baseline | All Participants | Intervention Group | Control | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 22 ± 2 | 22 ± 2 | 22 ± 2 | 0.15 |
| BMI (kg∙m−2) | 22.15 ± 2.82 | 21.15 ± 1.47 | 21.91 ± 3.52 | 0.60 |
|
Incontinence Impact Questionnaire | 3.29 ± 4.88 | 4.76 ± 4.90 | 2.18 ± 4.65 | 0.05 |
|
| ||||
| quick flick | 2.10 ± 1.78 | 2.33 ± 1.94 | 1.92 ± 1.67 | 0.60 |
| first 10-s contractions | 2.40 ± 1.89 | 2.56 ± 2.01 | 2.29 ± 1.83 | 0.81 |
| second 10-s contractions | 2.60 ± 1.96 | 2.56 ± 2.01 | 2.63 ± 1.97 | 0.96 |
| third 10-s contractions | 2.38 ± 1.79 | 2.56 ± 1.89 | 2.25 ± 1.75 | 0.66 |
| fourth 10-s contractions | 2.45 ± 1.88 | 2.39 ± 1.79 | 2.50 ± 1.98 | 0.98 |
| fifth 10-s contractions | 2.48 ± 1.85 | 2.94 ± 1.92 | 2.13 ± 1.75 | 0.15 |
| 60-s contraction | 1.83 ± 1.51 | 1.83 ± 1.47 | 1.83 ± 1.57 | 0.96 |
|
| ||||
| quick flick | 2.79 ± 1.41 | 2.72 ± 1.45 | 2.83 ± 1.40 | 0.96 |
| first 10-s contractions | 2.45 ± 1.37 | 2.56 ± 1.46 | 2.38 ± 1.31 | 0.49 |
| second 10-s contractions | 2.43 ± 1.47 | 2.56 ± 1.58 | 2.33 ± 1.40 | 0.50 |
| third 10-s contractions | 2.33 ± 1.37 | 2.17 ± 1.47 | 2.46 ± 1.32 | 0.56 |
| fourth 10-s contractions | 2.43 ± 1.47 | 2.44 ± 1.62 | 2.42 ± 1.38 | 0.85 |
| fifth 10-s contractions | 2.36 ± 1.45 | 2.06 ± 1.63 | 2.58 ± 1.28 | 0.37 |
| 60-s contraction | 2.71 ± 0.86 | 2.78 ± 0.88 | 2.67 ± 0.87 | 0.77 |
Values are means ± SD. The statistical significance level was obtained using a Mann–Whitney test (the name of a variable in italics) or unpaired t-test (the name of a variable in normal font); p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. IIQ score = item responses are assigned values of zero for “not at all,” one for “slightly,” two for “moderately,” and three for “greatly.” The average score of items responded to is calculated. The average, which was between zero and three, was multiplied by 33 1/3 to put scores on a scale of 0–100. * Scale firing order of the pelvic floor muscles: (1) PFM activated first; (2) PFM activated second; (3) PFM activated in third order; (4) PFM activated fourth in sequence; (5) lack of PFM neuromuscular activity. ** Score scale for the technique taking into account the isolation of PFM from synergistic muscles: four score—PFM contraction was recorded, maintaining the synergistic effect of relaxed muscles; three score—activation of PFM first, then selected synergistic muscles; two score—activation of synergistic muscles first, then PFM contraction; one score—activation of only synergistic muscles, leaving PFM muscles relaxed.
The firing order and technique scores for pelvic-floor muscle contraction pre- and post- intervention.
| Variable | Intervention Group ( | Control Group ( | ANOVA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Intervention | Post-Intervention | Pre-Intervention | Post-Intervention | ||
|
| |||||
| quick flick | 2.33 ± 1.94 | 1 ± 0 * | 1.92 ± 1.67 | 2.25 ± 1.85 | 0.04 |
| first 10-s contractions | 2.56 ± 2.01 | 1.06 ± 0.24 * | 2.29 ± 1.83 | 1.88 ± 1.65 | 0.04 |
| second 10-s contractions | 2.56 ± 2.01 | 1.5 ± 1.29 | 2.63 ± 1.97 | 2.46 ± 1.86 | 0.33 |
| third 10-s contractions | 2.56 ± 1.89 | 2.39 ± 1.82 | 2.25 ± 1.75 | 2.58 ± 1.93 | 0.65 |
| fourth 10-s contractions | 2.39 ± 1.79 | 2.33 ± 1.94 | 2.5 ± 1.98 | 2.17 ± 1.74 | 0.9 |
| fifth 10-s contractions | 2.94 ± 1.92 | 1.44 ± 1.29 * | 2.13 ± 1.75 | 2.29 ± 1.83 | 0.04 |
| 60-s contraction | 1.83 ± 1.47 | 1.17 ± 0.71 | 1.83 ± 1.58 | 1.63 ± 1.31 | 0.39 |
|
| |||||
| quick flick | 2.72 ± 1.45 | 3.61 ± 0.5 * | 2.83 ± 1.4 | 2.58 ± 1.53 | 0.03 |
| first 10-s contractions | 2.56 ± 1.46 | 3.22 ± 0.55 | 2.38 ± 1.31 | 2.75 ± 1.36 | 0.2 |
| second 10-s contractions | 2.56 ± 1.58 | 2.89 ± 1.02 | 2.33 ± 1.4 | 2.25 ± 1.59 | 0.83 |
| third 10-s contractions | 2.17 ± 1.47 | 2.17 ± 1.25 | 2.46 ± 1.32 | 2.21 ± 1.53 | 0.44 |
| fourth 10-s contractions | 2.44 ± 1.62 | 2.28 ± 1.49 | 2.42 ± 1.38 | 2.46 ± 1.5 | 0.96 |
| fifth 10-s contractions | 2.06 ± 1.63 | 2.72 ± 1.02 | 2.58 ± 1.28 | 2.42 ± 1.44 | 0.67 |
| 60-s contraction | 2.78 ± 0.88 | 3.06 ± 0.42 | 2.67 ± 0.87 | 2.88 ± 0.95 | 0.65 |
Values are means ± SD; Friedman ANOVA test; Dunn–Bonferroni post-hoc tests; p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant *. Scale firing order of the pelvic floor muscles: (1) PFM activated first; (2) PFM activated second; (3) PFM activated in third order; (4) PFM activated fourth in sequence; (5) lack of PFM neuromuscular activity. Score scale for the technique taking into account the isolation of PFM from synergistic muscles: 4 score—PFM contraction was recorded, maintaining the synergistic effect of relaxed muscles; three score—activation of PFM first, then selected synergistic muscles; two score—activation of synergistic muscles first, then PFM contraction; one score—activation of only synergistic muscles, leaving PFM muscles relaxed.
Figure 2Changes in the firing order of the pelvic floor muscles in: (a) quick flick; (b) first 10-s contractions; (c) fifth 10-s contractions.
Figure 3Individual changes in the firing order of pelvic floor muscles in selected motor tasks.