Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from SciELO through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Is there any difference between female pelvic floor muscle contractility in different positions?

Full text
Author(s):
Mariana Tirolli Rett [1] ; José Antonio Simões [2] ; Viviane Herrmann [3] ; Andréa de Andrade Marques [4] ; Sirlei Siani Morais [5]
Total Authors: 5
Affiliation:
[1] UNICAMP. CAISM. Departamento de Tocoginecologia
[2] UNICAMP. CAISM. Departamento de Tocoginecologia
[3] UNICAMP. CAISM. Departamento de Tocoginecologia
[4] UNICAMP. CAISM. Serviço de Fisioterapia
[5] UNICAMP. CAISM. Setor de Estatística
Total Affiliations: 5
Document type: Journal article
Source: Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia; v. 27, n. 1, p. 12-19, 2005-01-00.
Abstract

PURPOSE: to evaluate and compare results of female pelvic floor surface electromyography in different positions: lying, sitting and standing. METHODS: twenty-six women with the diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence treated with a protocol of exercises to strengthen the pelvic floor muscle were evaluated. Pelvic floor surface electromyography was performed with an intravaginal sensor connected to Myotrac 3G TM equipment, as follows: initial rest of 60 s, five phasic contractions, one 10-s tonic contraction and one 20-s tonic contraction. The amplitudes were obtained from the difference between the final contraction amplitude and the amplitude at rest (in µV). Wilcoxon test was applied for nonparametric data (p value <0.05). RESULTS: the amplitudes of contractions were higher in the lying position, decreasing in the sitting and standing positions. In the lying position, the median values of phasic and tonic contractions were 23.5 (5-73), 18.0 (3-58) and 17.0 (2-48), respectively. In the sitting position, they were 20.0 (2-69), 16.0 (0-58) and 15.5 (1-48). In the standing position they were 16.5 (3-67), 12.5 (2-54) and 13.5 (2-41). All amplitude values were significantly lower in the standing position compared to the lying position (p<0.001, p<0.001 and p=0.003). Similar results were also found in comparison to the sitting position. However, there was no significant difference between the lying and the sitting positions. CONCLUSION: all female pelvic floor contraction amplitudes were lower in the standing position, suggesting that the muscle strength should be intensified in that position. (AU)