| Literature DB >> 36078794 |
Licia P Cacciari1, Mélanie Morin2, Marie-Hélène Mayrand3, Chantale Dumoulin1.
Abstract
Pelvic floor muscle (PFM) training is the first-line treatment for women of all ages with urinary incontinence (UI), but evidence supporting its effects on the functional anatomy of the pelvic floor is scarce in older women. We aimed to evaluate the long-term (one-year) effects of PFM training on the shape of the levator hiatus (LH) in older women with UI and its association with PFM force, incontinence severity, and potential effect modifiers (age, UI severity, BMI, and UI type). This is a secondary analysis of the GROUP study, a non-inferiority RCT assessing the effects of a structured and progressive 12-week PFM training program to treat UI in older women. Data were available from 264/308 participants at the one-year follow-up. PFM training resulted in reduced LH size toward a more "circular" shape, which was consistently associated with greater PFM force and reduced UI severity. Further, no significant interactions were found between LH shape changes and any of the potential effect modifiers, suggesting that women will potentially benefit from PFM training, regardless of age, UI severity, BMI, and UI type (stress or mixed), with changes that can be observed in the functional anatomy of the pelvic floor and sustained in the long-term.Entities:
Keywords: conservative management; older women; pelvic floor morphometry; pelvic floor physiotherapy; pelvic floor ultrasound; urinary incontinence
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078794 PMCID: PMC9518531 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191711078
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Example of a transperineal ultrasound image in the plane of minimal hiatal dimensions showing the levator hiatus (orange circle), which has changed into a more circular shape following pelvic floor muscle (PFM) training. Images were taken during a PFM contraction: (a) at baseline; (b) at the one-year follow-up.
Levator hiatus shape following pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence at baseline and after one year.
| Assessment Condition | Baseline Hiatus Shape | One-Year Hiatus Shape | Mean Difference |
| Cohen’s d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rest | 290/244 | 1.39 (0.24) | 1.39 (0.24) | −0.01 (−0.03 to 0.02) | 0.630 | 0.04 (−0.09 to 0.17) |
| Contraction * | 295/250 | 1.22 (0.21) | 1.20 (0.22) | −0.02 (−0.04 to −0.01) | 0.005 | 0.18 (0.06 to 0.31) |
| Cough * | 285/244 | 1.31 (0.21) | 1.29 (0.22) | −0.02 (−0.04 to 0.00) | 0.033 | 0.14 (0.01 to 0.27) |
Data are given as mean (SD). * p < 0.05 (2-tailed). Hiatus shape calculated as the ratio between the LH sagittal and coronal diameters.
Correlation between levator hiatus shape and pelvic floor muscle force at rest, and during contraction and cough.
| Parameter |
| Pearson’s Correlation |
|---|---|---|
| Rest | ||
| LH shape at baseline vs. PFM force at baseline * | 233 | −0.13 |
| LH shape at one year vs. PFM force at one year ** | 232 | −0.20 |
| LH shape change vs. PFM force change | 205 | 0.08 |
| LH shape baseline vs. LH shape change ** | 230 | −0.34 |
| PFM contraction | ||
| LH shape at baseline vs. PFM force at baseline ** | 274 | −0.32 |
| LH shape at one year vs. PFM force at one year ** | 233 | −0.33 |
| LH shape change vs. PFM force change * | 214 | −0.16 |
| LH shape at baseline vs. LH shape change ** | 241 | −0.22 |
| Cough | ||
| LH shape at baseline vs. PFM force at baseline | 260 | 0.01 |
| LH shape at one year vs. PFM force at one year ** | 223 | −0.25 |
| LH shape change vs. PFM force change * | 191 | −0.16 |
| LH shape at baseline vs. LH shape change ** | 223 | −0.32 |
PFM, pelvic floor muscle; LH, levator hiatus; * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Association between the changes in shape of the levator hiatus during contraction and outcomes of interest.
| Outcomes | Baseline UI Severity | One Year UI Severity | Interaction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binary outcomes | ||||
| Age, years | ||||
| <70 | 211/180 | 1.21 (0.21) | 1.18 (0.21) | 0.59 |
| >70 | 84/70 | 1.26 (0.21) | 1.25 (0.23) | |
| UI severity a | ||||
| Moderate | 148/128 | 1.22 (0.22) | 1.19 (0.22) | 0.74 |
| Severe | 146/121 | 1.23 (0.21) | 1.21 (0.22) | |
| BMI, kg/m2 b | ||||
| Normal | 101/85 | 1.19 (0.20) | 1.16 (0.21) | 0.92 |
| High | 194/165 | 1.24 (0.21) | 1.22 (0.23) | |
| UI type | ||||
| Stress UI | 53/47 | 1.20 (0.20) | 1.17 (0.24) | 0.48 |
| Mixed UI | 242/203 | 1.23 (0.21) | 1.21 (0.22) | |
| Continuous outcomes | ||||
| Age | 295/250 | 0.15 | ||
| Severity | 295/250 | 0.42 | ||
| BMI | 294/249 | 0.32 | ||
| Age × Severity | 295/250 | 0.29 | ||
| Age × BMI | 294/249 | 0.59 | ||
| BMI × Severity | 295/250 | 0.92 |
Data are given as means (SD). UI, urinary incontinence; BMI, body-mass index, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. a UI severity was based on International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF); scores higher than 12/21 were considered severe [19]. b A body mass index over 25 kg/m2 was considered high [20].