The comparative effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training and hypopressive breathing techniques for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.7 3区医学 Q1 SURGERY

American journal of surgery Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116111

Jessica R Mitchell, Hanna E Brancaccio, Morgan Blusewicz Spt, David F Lo, Brandon Goodwin, Danielle Carey

{"title":"The comparative effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training and hypopressive breathing techniques for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Jessica R Mitchell, Hanna E Brancaccio, Morgan Blusewicz Spt, David F Lo, Brandon Goodwin, Danielle Carey","doi":"10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Pelvic floor (PF) disorder affects 25 % of females, often progressing to Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). PF muscle training (PFMT) and hypopressive breathing (HB) are conservative techniques used to repair pelvic muscles. This study analyzes the comparative efficacy of PFMT and HB for POP.Methods: A systematic review was conducted and seven records were included in the pooled analysis, which compared PF outcomes between HB and PFMT.Results: PFMT (d = 2.14 and d = 1.07) demonstrated a larger effect size compared to HB (d = 1.24 and d = 0.78) for sEMG contractility and the Modified Oxford Scale, respectively. The Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20) found a lower effect size of PFMT (d = 0.558) compared to HB (d = 0.961).Conclusions: PFMT was found to improve PF strength (Oxford) more than HB, while HB had a greater effect on quality of life (PFDI-20). Results were insignificant for contractility.","PeriodicalId":7771,"journal":{"name":"American journal of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"116111"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116111","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pelvic floor (PF) disorder affects 25 % of females, often progressing to Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). PF muscle training (PFMT) and hypopressive breathing (HB) are conservative techniques used to repair pelvic muscles. This study analyzes the comparative efficacy of PFMT and HB for POP.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted and seven records were included in the pooled analysis, which compared PF outcomes between HB and PFMT.

Results: PFMT (d = 2.14 and d = 1.07) demonstrated a larger effect size compared to HB (d = 1.24 and d = 0.78) for sEMG contractility and the Modified Oxford Scale, respectively. The Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20) found a lower effect size of PFMT (d = 0.558) compared to HB (d = 0.961).

Conclusions: PFMT was found to improve PF strength (Oxford) more than HB, while HB had a greater effect on quality of life (PFDI-20). Results were insignificant for contractility.

查看原文本刊更多论文

盆底肌肉训练和低压呼吸法治疗盆腔器官脱垂的效果比较：随机对照试验的系统回顾和汇总分析。

背景：25%的女性患有骨盆底（PF）疾病，并经常发展为骨盆器官脱垂（POP）。盆底肌肉训练（PFMT）和低压呼吸（HB）是用于修复盆腔肌肉的保守技术。本研究分析了 PFMT 和 HB 对 POP 的疗效比较：结果：PFMT（d = 2.2.0）、HB（d = 1.0.0）和HB（d = 1.0.0）的疗效均优于PFMT（d = 2.0.0）：结果：PFMT（d = 2.14 和 d = 1.07）与 HB（d = 1.24 和 d = 0.78）相比，在 sEMG 收缩力和改良牛津量表方面分别显示出更大的效应大小。盆底功能障碍指数（PFDI-20）显示，PFMT 的效应大小（d = 0.558）低于 HB（d = 0.961）：结论：PFMT 比 HB 更能改善 PF 强度（牛津），而 HB 对生活质量（PFDI-20）的影响更大。对收缩力的影响不显著。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American journal of surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

6.70%

发文量

570

审稿时长

56 days

期刊介绍： The American Journal of Surgery® is a peer-reviewed journal designed for the general surgeon who performs abdominal, cancer, vascular, head and neck, breast, colorectal, and other forms of surgery. AJS is the official journal of 7 major surgical societies* and publishes their official papers as well as independently submitted clinical studies, editorials, reviews, brief reports, correspondence and book reviews.