物理治疗和盆底肌肉锻炼预防和治疗妊娠相关盆底功能障碍:系统回顾和荟萃分析

Pub Date : 2019-10-07 DOI:10.15296/ijwhr.2020.20
Fahimeh Khorasani, F. Ghaderi, P. Sarbakhsh, P. Ahadi, E. Khorasani, F. Ansari, Nafiseh Vahed
{"title":"物理治疗和盆底肌肉锻炼预防和治疗妊娠相关盆底功能障碍:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Fahimeh Khorasani, F. Ghaderi, P. Sarbakhsh, P. Ahadi, E. Khorasani, F. Ansari, Nafiseh Vahed","doi":"10.15296/ijwhr.2020.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Objectives: The present systematic review focused on the prevention or treatment of three main types of pelvic floor dysfunctions (PFDs) specifically pelvic organ prolapse (POP), urinary incontinence (UI), and fecal incontinence (FI) using physiotherapy and pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMEs). With regard to the breadth of the problem, there is not much evidence grounded on the best management. The main purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of physiotherapy and PFMEs on the prevention and treatment of pregnancy-related PFDs; namely, POP, FI, and UI. Therefore, this review incorporated studies comparing the use of physiotherapy and PFMEs with every other existing interventions. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on randomized-controlled-trial (RCT) articles and quasi-RCT designs through a search in the studies published with no time limits until December 2017 in the databases of PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. The meta-analysis was also applied for data synthesis. Moreover, heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I2 index. Results: A total number of 26 RCTs were examined in this review in which the outcome variables were related to POP, UI, and FI prevalence; POP, UI, and FI severity, as well as pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength and endurance. In most articles, UI prevalence or severity in intervention groups had significantly improved compared with those in controls. The number of studies examining POP and FI was also relatively low. In two studies, FI severity or prevalence in intervention groups had significantly enhanced in comparison with those in control groups; however, FI prevalence in two articles had been reported lower in intervention groups than that in control groups although no significant difference had been observed. There was also no significant improvement in intervention groups in two other studies in this respect. Besides, three articles had not reported traces of improvement in POP, as well as a significant difference between intervention and control groups. Nevertheless, two studies had found a significant improvement in POP in this regard. Based on meta-analysis results for the variable of PFM strength, Cochran’s Q test (P<0.001) and I2 index (90.02) indicated heterogeneity between studies; so, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied to estimate overall effect sizes. The overall mean differences following intervention between the study groups were also equal to 6.94, with a 95% CI (1.36 to 12.52). Conclusions: It was concluded that physiotherapy and PFMEs might have effects on pregnancy-related UI, but they had not consistently reduced FI severity or prevalence and failed to constantly improve POP.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physiotherapy and Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises for the Prevention and Treatment of Pregnancy-Related Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Fahimeh Khorasani, F. Ghaderi, P. Sarbakhsh, P. Ahadi, E. Khorasani, F. Ansari, Nafiseh Vahed\",\"doi\":\"10.15296/ijwhr.2020.20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Objectives: The present systematic review focused on the prevention or treatment of three main types of pelvic floor dysfunctions (PFDs) specifically pelvic organ prolapse (POP), urinary incontinence (UI), and fecal incontinence (FI) using physiotherapy and pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMEs). With regard to the breadth of the problem, there is not much evidence grounded on the best management. The main purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of physiotherapy and PFMEs on the prevention and treatment of pregnancy-related PFDs; namely, POP, FI, and UI. Therefore, this review incorporated studies comparing the use of physiotherapy and PFMEs with every other existing interventions. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on randomized-controlled-trial (RCT) articles and quasi-RCT designs through a search in the studies published with no time limits until December 2017 in the databases of PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. The meta-analysis was also applied for data synthesis. Moreover, heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I2 index. Results: A total number of 26 RCTs were examined in this review in which the outcome variables were related to POP, UI, and FI prevalence; POP, UI, and FI severity, as well as pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength and endurance. In most articles, UI prevalence or severity in intervention groups had significantly improved compared with those in controls. The number of studies examining POP and FI was also relatively low. In two studies, FI severity or prevalence in intervention groups had significantly enhanced in comparison with those in control groups; however, FI prevalence in two articles had been reported lower in intervention groups than that in control groups although no significant difference had been observed. There was also no significant improvement in intervention groups in two other studies in this respect. Besides, three articles had not reported traces of improvement in POP, as well as a significant difference between intervention and control groups. Nevertheless, two studies had found a significant improvement in POP in this regard. Based on meta-analysis results for the variable of PFM strength, Cochran’s Q test (P<0.001) and I2 index (90.02) indicated heterogeneity between studies; so, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied to estimate overall effect sizes. The overall mean differences following intervention between the study groups were also equal to 6.94, with a 95% CI (1.36 to 12.52). Conclusions: It was concluded that physiotherapy and PFMEs might have effects on pregnancy-related UI, but they had not consistently reduced FI severity or prevalence and failed to constantly improve POP.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15296/ijwhr.2020.20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15296/ijwhr.2020.20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:本系统综述的重点是预防或治疗三种主要类型的盆底功能障碍(PFDs),特别是盆腔器官脱垂(POP),尿失禁(UI)和大便失禁(FI)使用物理治疗和盆底肌肉锻炼(PFMEs)。就问题的广度而言,没有多少证据能证明最佳管理。本系统综述的主要目的是评价物理治疗和PFMEs对妊娠相关PFDs的预防和治疗效果;即POP、FI和UI。因此,本综述纳入了比较物理治疗和PFMEs与其他所有现有干预措施的研究。方法:通过检索PubMed (Medline)、Web of Science、Scopus、Embase、Cochrane Library和ProQuest数据库中截至2017年12月发表的无时间限制的研究,对随机对照试验(RCT)文章和准RCT设计进行系统评价和荟萃分析。meta分析也用于数据综合。采用Cochran’s Q检验和I2指数评估异质性。结果:本综述共检查了26项随机对照试验,其中结果变量与POP、UI和FI患病率相关;POP, UI和FI的严重程度,以及骨盆底肌肉(PFM)的力量和耐力。在大多数文章中,干预组的尿失禁患病率或严重程度与对照组相比有显著改善。研究POP和FI的研究数量也相对较少。在两项研究中,干预组的FI严重程度或患病率明显高于对照组;然而,两篇文章报道了干预组的FI患病率低于对照组,尽管没有观察到显著差异。在这方面的另外两项研究中,干预组也没有显著的改善。此外,三篇文章没有报道POP改善的痕迹,以及干预组和对照组之间的显著差异。不过,有两项研究发现,在这方面,POP有了重大改善。基于PFM强度变量的meta分析结果,Cochran’s Q检验(P<0.001)和I2指数(90.02)表明研究间存在异质性;因此,采用随机效应荟萃分析来估计总体效应大小。实验组之间干预后的总体平均差异也等于6.94,95% CI(1.36 ~ 12.52)。结论:结论是物理治疗和PFMEs可能对妊娠相关的UI有影响,但它们不能持续降低FI的严重程度或患病率,也不能持续改善POP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Physiotherapy and Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises for the Prevention and Treatment of Pregnancy-Related Pelvic Floor Dysfunctions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Objectives: The present systematic review focused on the prevention or treatment of three main types of pelvic floor dysfunctions (PFDs) specifically pelvic organ prolapse (POP), urinary incontinence (UI), and fecal incontinence (FI) using physiotherapy and pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFMEs). With regard to the breadth of the problem, there is not much evidence grounded on the best management. The main purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of physiotherapy and PFMEs on the prevention and treatment of pregnancy-related PFDs; namely, POP, FI, and UI. Therefore, this review incorporated studies comparing the use of physiotherapy and PFMEs with every other existing interventions. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on randomized-controlled-trial (RCT) articles and quasi-RCT designs through a search in the studies published with no time limits until December 2017 in the databases of PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. The meta-analysis was also applied for data synthesis. Moreover, heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q test and I2 index. Results: A total number of 26 RCTs were examined in this review in which the outcome variables were related to POP, UI, and FI prevalence; POP, UI, and FI severity, as well as pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength and endurance. In most articles, UI prevalence or severity in intervention groups had significantly improved compared with those in controls. The number of studies examining POP and FI was also relatively low. In two studies, FI severity or prevalence in intervention groups had significantly enhanced in comparison with those in control groups; however, FI prevalence in two articles had been reported lower in intervention groups than that in control groups although no significant difference had been observed. There was also no significant improvement in intervention groups in two other studies in this respect. Besides, three articles had not reported traces of improvement in POP, as well as a significant difference between intervention and control groups. Nevertheless, two studies had found a significant improvement in POP in this regard. Based on meta-analysis results for the variable of PFM strength, Cochran’s Q test (P<0.001) and I2 index (90.02) indicated heterogeneity between studies; so, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied to estimate overall effect sizes. The overall mean differences following intervention between the study groups were also equal to 6.94, with a 95% CI (1.36 to 12.52). Conclusions: It was concluded that physiotherapy and PFMEs might have effects on pregnancy-related UI, but they had not consistently reduced FI severity or prevalence and failed to constantly improve POP.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信