Cited by 28Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsSexual function and dysfunction studies

Effect of preoperative pelvic floor muscle training on pelvic floor muscle contraction and symptomatic and anatomical pelvic organ prolapse after surgery: Randomized controlled trial

Nyhus, M. Ø., Mathew, S., Salvesen, Ø., Salvesen, K. Å., Stafne, S., Volløyhaug, I.·2020·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of preoperative pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) on pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contraction, symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and anatomical POP, 6 months after prolapse surgery, and to assess the overall changes in PFM contraction, POP symptoms and pelvic organ descent after surgery. Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial of 159 women with symptomatic POP, Stage 2 or higher, scheduled for surgery. Participants were randomized to intervention including daily PFMT from inclusion to surgery (n = 81) or no intervention (controls; n = 78). Participants were examined at inclusion, on the day of surgery and 6 months after surgery. PFM contraction was assessed by: vaginal palpation using the Modified Oxford scale (MOS; 0–5); transperineal ultrasound, measuring the percentage change in levator hiatal anteroposterior diameter (APD) from rest to maximum PFM contraction; vaginal manometry; and surface electromyography (EMG). POP distance from the hymen in the compartment with the most dominant prolapse and organ descent in the anterior, central and posterior compartments were measured on maximum Valsalva maneuver. POP symptoms were assessed based on the sensation of vaginal bulge, which was graded using a visual analog scale (VAS; 0–100 mm). Linear mixed models were used to assess the effect of PFMT on outcome variables. Results: Of the 159 women randomized, 151 completed the study, comprising 75 in the intervention and 76 in the control group. Mean waiting time for surgery was 22 ± 9.7 weeks and follow‐up was performed on average 28 ± 7.8 weeks after surgery. Postoperatively, no difference was found between the intervention and control groups with respect to PFM contraction assessed by vaginal palpation (MOS, 2.4 vs 2.2; P = 0.101), manometry (19.4 vs 19.7 cmH 2 O; P = 0.793), surface EMG (33.5 vs 33.1 mV; P = 0.815) and ultrasound (change in hiatal APD, 20.9% vs 19.3%; P = 0.211). Furthermore, no difference between groups was found for sensation of vaginal bulge (VAS, 7.4 vs 6.0 mm; P = 0.598), POP distance from the hymen in the dominant prolapse compartment (−1.8 vs −2.0 cm; P = 0.556) and sonographic descent of the bladder (0.5 vs 0.8 cm; P = 0.058), cervix (−1.3 vs −1.1 cm; P = 0.569) and rectal ampulla (0.3 vs 0.4 cm; P = 0.434). In all patients, compared with findings at initial examination, muscle contraction improved after surgery, as assessed by palpation (MOS, 2.1 vs 2.3; P = 0.007) and ultrasound (change in hiatal APD, 17.5% vs 20.1%; P = 0.001), and sensation of vaginal bulge was reduced (VAS, 57.6 vs 6.7 mm; P < 0.001). In addition, compared with the baseline examination, POP distance from the hymen in the dominant prolapse compartment (1.9 vs −1.9 cm; P < 0.001) and sonographic descent of the bladder (1.3 vs 0.6 cm; P < 0.001), cervix (0.0 vs −1.2 cm; P < 0.001) and rectal ampulla (0.9 vs 0.4 cm; P = 0.001) were reduced. Conclusions: We found no effect of preoperative PFMT on PFM contraction, POP symptoms or anatomical prolapse after surgery. In all patients, PFM contraction and POP symptoms were improved at the 6‐month follow‐up, most likely due to the anatomical correction of POP. Copyright © 2020 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/uog.22007

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nyhus, M. Ø., Mathew, S., Salvesen, Ø., Salvesen, K. Å., Stafne, S., & Volløyhaug, I.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Nyhus, M. Ø.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-09
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
28-36
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W3009789533
Cited by
27
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
Keywords
pelvic floor muscle training, pelvic organ prolapse, prehabilitation, pelvic floor muscle contraction, pelvic organ descent, pelvic organ prolapse surgery, surface electromyography, transperineal ultrasound, pelvic floor muscle strength, women's health, pelvic floor dysfunction, postoperative outcomes
MeSH terms
Electromyography, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Muscle Contraction, Urinary Incontinence, Stress, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Floor, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review