The Journal of reproductive medicine · 2007
Pelvic floor function and anatomy after childbirth.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baytur Yesim Bulbul, Serter Selim, Tarhan Serdar, Uyar Yildiz, Inceboz Umit, Pabuscu Yuksel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate pelvic floor muscle function and anatomy after childbirth in continent women differing in obstetric history.
STUDY DESIGN: Young, continent women, age range 20-40 years, were recruited into 3 groups: 1. elective, prelabor cesarean delivery (n =12); 2. vaginal delivery (n = 15); and 3. age-matched nulliparas as controls (n = 13). Pelvic floor muscle strength was measured by a perineometer and also assessed by vaginal palpation. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvic floor at rest and on maximal strain was performed. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 10.0 (Chicago, Illinois) for Windows (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington); p < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: Pelvic floor muscle strength was not different between the vaginal delivery and cesarean groups. The descent of the bladder and cervix on straining was greater in the subjects who delivered vaginally than in the cesarean delivery and nulliparous groups. There was a positive and significant correlation between the duration of labor and the area of the levator sling and also between birth weight and the descent of the cervix on straining.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that delivery method does not affect pelvic muscle strength.
STUDY DESIGN: Young, continent women, age range 20-40 years, were recruited into 3 groups: 1. elective, prelabor cesarean delivery (n =12); 2. vaginal delivery (n = 15); and 3. age-matched nulliparas as controls (n = 13). Pelvic floor muscle strength was measured by a perineometer and also assessed by vaginal palpation. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvic floor at rest and on maximal strain was performed. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS 10.0 (Chicago, Illinois) for Windows (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington); p < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: Pelvic floor muscle strength was not different between the vaginal delivery and cesarean groups. The descent of the bladder and cervix on straining was greater in the subjects who delivered vaginally than in the cesarean delivery and nulliparous groups. There was a positive and significant correlation between the duration of labor and the area of the levator sling and also between birth weight and the descent of the cervix on straining.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that delivery method does not affect pelvic muscle strength.