Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 1/2017

01-01-2017 | Original Article

Pelvic floor muscle strength in primigravidae and non-pregnant nulliparous women: a comparative study

Authors: Vanessa P. Palmezoni, Marília D. Santos, Janser M. Pereira, Bruno T. Bernardes, Vanessa S. Pereira-Baldon, Ana Paula M. Resende

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective was to evaluate the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) in primigravidae and compare them with those in nonpregnant nulliparous women.

Methods

The sample consisted of 141 women with a mean age of 22.8 years, divided into four groups: 36 nonpregnant nulliparous (C), 31 primigravidae in the first trimester (1T), 42 primigravida in the second trimester (2T), and 32 primigravidae in the third trimester (3T). The participants were examined by digital palpation for pelvic floor muscle contraction using the Modified Oxford Scale, by measuring maximal vaginal squeeze pressure with a vaginal perineometer, and by measuring PFM maximal strength using a vaginal dynamometer. The best value of three maximal strengths was considered for analysis, the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests were used and differences were considered significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

The mean values for group C were 3.2 (digital palpation), 45.6 cmH2O (perineometry), and 11.7 N (dynamometry); for group 1T the corresponding values were 2.5, 21.1 cmH2O, and 8.8 N; for group 2T: 2.8, 22.9 cmH2O, and 7.8 N; and for group 3T: 2.1, 17.3 cmH2O, and 6.8 N. Groups were compared in pairs for digital palpation, perineometry, and dynamometry. There were significant differences between group C and group 1T, and between group C and group 3T. There was a significant difference between group C and group 2T with regard to perineometry and dynamometry, but not digital palpation. Dynamometry demonstrated a difference between groups 1T and 3T, digital palpation between groups 2T and 3T.

Conclusion

Pelvic floor muscles in primigravidae are not as strong as those in nonpregnant nulliparous women.
Literature
1.
Ribeiro JAAB, Felice TD, Souza ESF, Souza NFH. Analysis of the force of perineal contraction in primiparas. Interbio. 2009;3(1):22–6.
2.
Bo K, Sherburn M. Evaluation of female pelvic-floor muscle function and strength. J Am Phys Ther Assoc. 2005;85(3):269–82.
3.
Resende AP, Petricelli CD, Bernardes BT, Alexandre SM, Nakamura MU, Zanetti MRD. Electromyographic evaluation of pelvic floor muscles in pregnant and nonpregnant women. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(8):1041–5.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Phillips C, Monga A. Childbirth and the pelvic floor: “the gynaecological consequences”. Gynaecol Perinatal Pract. 2005;5(1):15–22.CrossRef
5.
Franceschet J, Sacomori C, Cardoso FL. Strength of pelvic floor muscles and sexual function during pregnancy. Braz J Phys Ther. 2009;13(5):383–9.CrossRef
6.
Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JOL. Functional anatomy of the pelvic floor. In: Bo K, Berghmans B, Morkved S, Van-Kampem M, editors. Evidence based physical therapy for the pelvic floor. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015. p. 19–32.CrossRef
7.
Riesco MLG, Caroci AS, Oliveira SMJV, Lopes MHBM. Perineal muscle strength during pregnancy and postpartum: the correlation between perineometry and digital vaginal palpation. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2010;18(6):1138–44.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ferreira CHJ, Barbosa PB, Souza FO, Antônio FI, Franco MM, BO K. Inter-rater reliability study of the modified Oxford Grading Scale and the Peritron manometer. Physiotherapy. 2011;97:132–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Botelho S, Pereira LC, Marques J, Lanza AH, Amorim CF, Palma P, et al. Is there correlation between electromyography and digital palpation as means of measuring pelvic floor muscle contractility in non-pregnant nulliparous, pregnant, and postpartum women? Neurourol Urodyn. 2013;32:420–3.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Dumoulin C, Gravel D, Bourbonnais D, Lemieux MC, Morin M. Reliability of dynamometric measurements of the pelvic floor musculature. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:134–42.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gameiro MO, Sousa VO, Gameiro LF, Muchailh RC, Padovani CR, Amaro JL. Comparison of pelvic floor muscle strength evaluations in non-pregnant nulliparous and primigravid women: a prospective study. Clinics. 2011;66(8):1389–93.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Morin M, Dumoulin C, Bourbonnais D, Gravel D, Lemieux MC. Pelvic floor maximal strength using vaginal digital assessment compared to dynamometric measurements. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:336–41.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Viktrup L. The risk of lower urinary tract symptoms five years after the first delivery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:2–29.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Goldberg RP. Effects of pregnancy and childbirth on the pelvic floor. In: Culligan P, Goldberg RP, editors. Urogynecology in primary care. London: Springer; 2007. p. 21–33.CrossRef
15.
Ministério da Saúde (BR) (2000) Manual. Assistência Pré-natal: Manual técnico. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde
16.
BolfarineH BWO. Elementos de amostragem. 1st ed. Sao Paulo: Editora Blucher; 2005.
17.
Borin LCS, Nunes FR, Guirro ECO. Assessment of pelvic floor muscle pressure in female athletes. Am Acad Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;5:189–93.
18.
Martinho NM, Marques J, Silva VR, Silva SLA, Carvalho LC, Botelho S. Intra and inter-rater reliability study of pelvic floor muscle dynamometric measurements. Braz J Phys Ther. 2015;19(2):97–104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Laycock J. Clinical evaluation of pelvic floor. In: Schussler B, Laycock J, Norton P, Stanton S, editors. Pelvic floor re-education. London: Springer; 1994. p. 91–104.
20.
Frawley HC, Galea MP, Phillips BA, Sherburn M, Bo K. Reliability of pelvic floor muscle strength assessment using different test positions and tools. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006;25(3):236–42.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Institute of Medicine (2009) Weight gain during pregnancy: reexamining the guideline. Resource sheet
22.
Mardones F, Rosso P. A weight gain chart for pregnant women designed in Chile. Mater Child Nutr. 2005;1:77–90.CrossRef
23.
Miodrag A, Castleden CM, Vallance TR. Sex hormones and the female urinary tract. Drugs. 1988;36:491–504.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Sangsawang B. Risk factors for the development of stress urinary incontinence during pregnancy in primigravidae: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;178:27–34.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Botelho S, Riccetto C, Herrmann V, Pereira LC, Amorim C, Palma P. Impact of delivery mode on electromyographic activity of pelvic floor: comparative prospective study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:1258–61.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Batista EM, Conde DM, Amaral WN, Martinez EZ. Comparison of pelvic floor muscle strength between women undergoing vaginal delivery, cesarean section, and nulliparae using a perineometer and digital palpation. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2011;27(11):910–4.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Dumoulin C, Bourbonnais D, Lemieux MC. Development of a dynamometer for measuring the isometric force of the pelvic floor musculature. Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22(7):648–53.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Vodusek E. Neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of pelvic floor muscles. In: Bo K, Berghmans B, Morkved S, Van-Kampem M, editors. Evidence based physical therapy for the pelvic floor. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015. p. 34–41.
Metadata
Title
Pelvic floor muscle strength in primigravidae and non-pregnant nulliparous women: a comparative study
Authors
Vanessa P. Palmezoni
Marília D. Santos
Janser M. Pereira
Bruno T. Bernardes
Vanessa S. Pereira-Baldon
Ana Paula M. Resende
Publication date
01-01-2017
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3088-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

International Urogynecology Journal 1/2017 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Authors’ reply to the comment by Shek et al. on: “Descending perineum syndrome: a review of the presentation, diagnosis, and management” by Chaudhry and Tarnay

Original Article

Characterization of the median sacral artery course at the sacral promontory using contrast-enhanced computed tomography

Original Article

Proximity of uterosacral ligament suspension sutures and S3 sacral nerve to pelvic landmarks

Original Article

King’s Health Questionnaire to assess subjective outcomes after surgical treatment for urinary incontinence: can it be useful?

Original Article

Levator ani defects in patients with stress urinary incontinence: three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound assessment

Special Contribution

An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female anorectal dysfunction