Do Dynamometric Variables of the Pelvic Floor Muscles Differ between Women with and without Stress Urinary Incontinence? A Blind, Cross-sectional Study
Karina Moyano Amorim
Physical Therapy Departament, Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
Elora dos Santos Silva de Lima
Physical Therapy Departament, Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
Caroline Razera Ferreira
Physical Therapy Departament, Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alisson Monteiro de Freitas
Physical Therapy Departament, Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
Luis Eduardo Peixoto Rosa dos Santos
Physical Therapy Departament, Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
César Ferreira Amorim
Physical Therapy Departament, Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Daniela Aparecida Biasotto-Gonzalez
Physical Therapy Departament, Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
Fabiano Politti *
Physical Therapy Departament, Postgraduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare pelvic floor muscles (PFM) contraction variables between women with and without stress urinary incontinence (SUI).
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated the PFM of 17 healthy women and 17 women with SUI during a single test session using a vaginal dynamometer. Outcomes: peak time (time at which peak force occurred after the onset of contraction), passive force (baseline), maximum contraction force, impulse of contraction, average force and endurance time. Dada was recording during a single test session using a vaginal dynamometer.
Results: The following PFM contraction variables were evaluated: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the Bonferroni post hoc test was used to compare the dynamometric data between groups (control and SUI), considering age and number of childbirths as co-variables. Significant difference was observed between groups with regard to endurance (F = 4.87, P < .03; ANCOVA test), whereas no significant differences were found for the other variables analyzed.
Conclusion: The endurance time of PFM contraction is shorter in women with SUI, whereas variables related to the intensity of pelvic floor muscle contraction force and time from the onset to peak contraction of these muscles are similar between women with and without stress urinary incontinence.
Keywords: Physiotherapy, dynamometer, stress urinary incontinence, pelvic floor muscle