The Correlations between Three Methods of Pelvic Floor Muscle Strength Assessment in Nulliparous Women: 2D Transperineal Ultrasound, Modified Oxford Scale, and PFX2® Perineometer
Keywords:
Transperineal ultrasound, Perineometer, Pelvic floor muscle strenthAbstract
Objective: To study the correlation between three methods for pelvic floor muscle strength assessment in nulliparous women.
Methods: A cross-sectional study, 50 nulliparous were recruited. Modified oxford scale (MOS) was assessed by one author (OW) and highest maximum squeeze value was recorded. The vaginal pressure during maximum squeeze with PFX2® perineometer was recorded by one trained nurse. The midsagittal view of anteroposterior (AP) hiatal dimension using 2D transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) was done by the other author (PL) to measure the difference between the AP hiatal dimension in the resting stage compared to maximum squeeze.
Result: The mean MOS + SD was 4.4 + 0.7. The mean + SD PFX2® perineometer was 10.4 + 1.8 cmH2O. The mean + SD difference of AP dimension using TPUS was 1.1 + 0.6 cm (22.8 + 10%). PFX2® perineometer was poorly correlated with the different AP dimension using TPUS (r = 0.19, p-value = 0.18) and weakly correlated with the percent of difference AP dimension using TPUS (r = 0.21, p-value = 0.15). MOS was moderately correlated with the difference and percent of difference AP dimension using TPUS (r = 0.35, p-value<0.05 and r= 0.34, p-value<0.05 respectively). MOS was strongly correlated to PFX2® perineometer (r= 0.73, p-value < 0.05).
Conclusion: In healthy nulliparous women, PFX2® perineometer and MOS could be used to assess the strength of the pelvic floor muscles, but two-dimension TPUS could not be used to assess it. Because the difference hiatal dimension is small due to nulliparous characterization.
Downloads
References
Santoro G, Wieczorek A, Dietz H, et al. State of the art: an integrated approach to pelvic floor ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(4):381-96.
Chuenchompoonut V, Bunyavejchevin S, Wisawasukmongchol W, Taechakraichana N. Prevalence of genital prolapse in Thai menopausal women (using new standardization classification). J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88(1):1-4.
Manonai J, Poowapirom A, Kittipiboon S, Patrachai S, Udomsubpayakul U, Chittacharoen A. Female urinary incontinence: a cross-sectional study from a Thai rural area. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17(4):321-5.
Dietz HP. Pelvic floor trauma in childbirth. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;53(3):220-30.
Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):795-806.
Dietz H, Simpson J. Levator trauma is associated with pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG. 2008;115(8):979-84.
Rojas RG, Wong V, Shek KL, Dietz HP. Impact of levator trauma on pelvic floor muscle function. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(3):375-80.
Hay‐Smith EJC, Herderschee R, Dumoulin C, Herbison GP. Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane library. 2011(12).
Abrams P, Andersson K-E, Birder L, et al. Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyna. 2017;29(1):1443-1568.
Ferreira CHJ, Barbosa PB, de Oliveira Souza F, Antônio FI, Franco MM, Bo K. Inter-rater reliability study of the modified Oxford Grading Scale and the Peritron manometer. Physiotherapy. 2011;97(2):132-8.
Kamisan Atan ILS, Herbison P WP, Dietz H. Assessment of levator avulsion: digital palpation versus tomographic ultrasound imaging. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;100: 130-135.
Isherwood P, Rane A. Comparative assessment of pelvic floor strength using a perineometer and digital examination. BJOG. 2000;107(8):1007-11.
DeLancey JO, Morgan DM, Fenner DE, et al. Comparison of levator ani muscle defects and function in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(2):295-302.
Volloyhaug I, Morkved S, Salvesen O, Salvesen K. Assessment of pelvic floor muscle contraction with palpation, perineometry and transperineal ultrasound: a cross‐sectional study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(6):768-73.
Madkour NM. Transperineal ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor muscles in women with pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms: A cross-sectional study. Middle East Fertility Society J. 2018;23(3):232-7.
Schussler B, Laycock J. Clinical evaluation of the pelvic floor. In: Laycock J, ed. Pelvic floor re-education 1.Germany: Springer;1994:42-8.
Dietz HP, Steensma AB. Posterior compartment prolapse on two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound: the distinction between true rectocele, perineal hypermobility and enterocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26(1):73-7.
Grischke E, Dietz H, Jeanty P, Schmidt W. A new study method: the perineal scan in obstetrics and gynecology. Ultraschall Med. 1986;7(4):154-61.
Dietz H, Jarvis S, Vancaillie T. The assessment of levator muscle strength: a validation of three ultrasound techniques. Int Urogynecol J. 2002;13(3):156-9.
Asuero AG, Sayago A, Gonzalez A. The correlation coefficient: An overview. Critical reviews in analytical chemistry. 2006;36(1):41-59.
Hulley SB, Cumming SR, Browner WS, Grady D, Newman TB. Designing clinical research:an epidermiologic approach. 4. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams&Wilkins; 2013:79.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Asian Medical Journal and Alternative Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
