Thais Naomi Sawada, A. Lunardi, Daniela Fantin Carro, D. Porto, L. Silveira, E. A. Ferreira
{"title":"两种装置促进尿失禁女性坐位盆底肌收缩的感知:比较分析","authors":"Thais Naomi Sawada, A. Lunardi, Daniela Fantin Carro, D. Porto, L. Silveira, E. A. Ferreira","doi":"10.1590/1809-2950/22009229032022en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The use of support devices may facilitate the perception of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contraction, which is difficult to be performed. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the perception of PFM contraction in the sitting position during the use of two different support devices on women with PFM dysfunction. This is a cross-sectional study performed with 37 women with stress or mixed urinary incontinence (UI). All women performed three free PFM contractions sitting on a chair, followed by three contractions using each support device (sand pads and a cylindrical foam, which provide sciatic and perineal support, respectively). Women scored the perception of PFM contraction from 1 to 5, as well as the perception of facilitation of contraction (higher grades show better results) and discomfort (higher grades show more discomfort) when compared with free contraction. The cylindrical foam presented similar results to sand pads for the perception of PFM contraction (2.84±1.61 vs. 3.19±1.43; p=0.34) and facilitation of contraction (3.38±1.34 vs. 3.19±1.54; p=0.61), as well as for their discomfort (1.83±1.23 vs. 1.5±1.16; p=0.20). Of all women, 57% preferred sand pads. Thus, both sand pads (sciatic support) and the cylindrical foam (perineal support) improved the perception of PFM contraction and facilitation of contraction in the sitting position of women with PFM dysfunction when compared with sitting with no device. The two devices presented no difference between them.","PeriodicalId":436434,"journal":{"name":"Fisioterapia e Pesquisa","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two devices to facilitate the perception of pelvic floor muscle contraction in the sitting position in women with urinary incontinence: comparative analysis\",\"authors\":\"Thais Naomi Sawada, A. Lunardi, Daniela Fantin Carro, D. Porto, L. Silveira, E. A. Ferreira\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/1809-2950/22009229032022en\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The use of support devices may facilitate the perception of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contraction, which is difficult to be performed. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the perception of PFM contraction in the sitting position during the use of two different support devices on women with PFM dysfunction. This is a cross-sectional study performed with 37 women with stress or mixed urinary incontinence (UI). All women performed three free PFM contractions sitting on a chair, followed by three contractions using each support device (sand pads and a cylindrical foam, which provide sciatic and perineal support, respectively). Women scored the perception of PFM contraction from 1 to 5, as well as the perception of facilitation of contraction (higher grades show better results) and discomfort (higher grades show more discomfort) when compared with free contraction. The cylindrical foam presented similar results to sand pads for the perception of PFM contraction (2.84±1.61 vs. 3.19±1.43; p=0.34) and facilitation of contraction (3.38±1.34 vs. 3.19±1.54; p=0.61), as well as for their discomfort (1.83±1.23 vs. 1.5±1.16; p=0.20). Of all women, 57% preferred sand pads. Thus, both sand pads (sciatic support) and the cylindrical foam (perineal support) improved the perception of PFM contraction and facilitation of contraction in the sitting position of women with PFM dysfunction when compared with sitting with no device. The two devices presented no difference between them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":436434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fisioterapia e Pesquisa\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fisioterapia e Pesquisa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-2950/22009229032022en\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fisioterapia e Pesquisa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-2950/22009229032022en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
使用支撑装置可以促进盆底肌(PFM)收缩的感知,这是难以实现的。因此,本研究旨在比较PFM功能障碍女性在使用两种不同的支撑装置时,坐姿对PFM收缩的感知。这是一项对37名患有压力性或混合性尿失禁(UI)的女性进行的横断面研究。所有女性都坐在椅子上进行三次免费的PFM收缩,然后使用每种支撑装置(沙垫和圆柱形泡沫,分别提供坐骨和会阴支撑)进行三次收缩。与自由收缩相比,女性对PFM收缩的感觉评分从1到5,以及对收缩促进(分数越高效果越好)和不适(分数越高不适越多)的感觉评分。圆柱形泡沫与沙垫在PFM收缩感知方面的结果相似(2.84±1.61 vs. 3.19±1.43;P =0.34)、易收缩性(3.38±1.34∶3.19±1.54;P =0.61),以及不适程度(1.83±1.23 vs. 1.5±1.16;p = 0.20)。在所有女性中,57%的人更喜欢沙垫。因此,沙垫(坐骨支撑)和圆柱形泡沫(会阴支撑)都能改善PFM功能障碍女性坐位时PFM收缩的感知和收缩的便便性,与没有装置的坐姿相比。这两种装置没有区别。
Two devices to facilitate the perception of pelvic floor muscle contraction in the sitting position in women with urinary incontinence: comparative analysis
ABSTRACT The use of support devices may facilitate the perception of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contraction, which is difficult to be performed. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the perception of PFM contraction in the sitting position during the use of two different support devices on women with PFM dysfunction. This is a cross-sectional study performed with 37 women with stress or mixed urinary incontinence (UI). All women performed three free PFM contractions sitting on a chair, followed by three contractions using each support device (sand pads and a cylindrical foam, which provide sciatic and perineal support, respectively). Women scored the perception of PFM contraction from 1 to 5, as well as the perception of facilitation of contraction (higher grades show better results) and discomfort (higher grades show more discomfort) when compared with free contraction. The cylindrical foam presented similar results to sand pads for the perception of PFM contraction (2.84±1.61 vs. 3.19±1.43; p=0.34) and facilitation of contraction (3.38±1.34 vs. 3.19±1.54; p=0.61), as well as for their discomfort (1.83±1.23 vs. 1.5±1.16; p=0.20). Of all women, 57% preferred sand pads. Thus, both sand pads (sciatic support) and the cylindrical foam (perineal support) improved the perception of PFM contraction and facilitation of contraction in the sitting position of women with PFM dysfunction when compared with sitting with no device. The two devices presented no difference between them.