Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Sun, Zhi‐Jing
• Tian, Zhao
• Xu, Tao
• Wang, Zhong‐Min
• Zhu, Xi‐Hui
• Luo, Jun
• Cheng, Fang
• Gong, Lin
• Zhang, Jie
• Wang, Li‐Hui
• Zhu, Wei‐Pei
• Qu, Xue‐Ling
• Lin, Zhong
• Ge, Wei‐Ping
• Wang, Bi‐Nan
• Zhu, Lan

Titel

Pelvic floor muscle strength and influencing factors based on vaginal manometry among healthy women at different life stages: A multicentre cross‐sectional study

Ist Teil von

• BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2024-06, Vol.131 (7), p.952-960

Ort / Verlag

England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2024

Quelle

Wiley-Blackwell Journals

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Objective To assess pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength and influencing factors among healthy women at different life stages. Design Multicentre cross‐sectional study. Setting Fourteen hospitals in China. Population A total of 5040 healthy women allocated to the following groups (with 1680 women per group): premenopausal nulliparous, premenopausal parous and postmenopausal. Methods The PFM strength was evaluated by vaginal manometry. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the influencing factors for low PFM strength. Main Outcome Measures Maximum voluntary contraction pressure (MVCP). Results The median MVCP values were 36, 35 and 35 cmH2O in premenopausal nulliparous (aged 19–51 years), premenopausal parous (aged 22–61 years), and postmenopausal (aged 40–86 years) women, respectively. In the premenopausal nulliparous group, physical work (odds ratio, OR 2.05) was the risk factor for low PFM strength, which may be related to the chronic increased abdominal pressure caused by physical work. In the premenopausal parous group, the number of vaginal deliveries (OR 1.28) and diabetes (OR 2.70) were risk factors for low PFM strength, whereas sexual intercourse (<2 times per week vs. none, OR 0.55; ≥2 times per week vs. none, OR 0.56) and PFM exercise (OR 0.50) may have protective effects. In the postmenopausal group, the number of vaginal deliveries (OR 1.32) and family history of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) (OR 1.83) were risk factors for low PFM strength. Conclusions Physical work, vaginal delivery, diabetes and a family history of POP are all risk factors for low PFM strength, whereas PFM exercises and sexual life can have a protective effect. The importance of these factors varies at different stages of a woman's life.