Erin H. Hartigan, J. McAuley, M. Lawrence, Carly A. Keafer, A. Ball, A. Michaud, M. DeSilva
{"title":"Pelvic Floor Muscle Performance, Hip Mobility, and Hip Strength in Women With and Without Self-Reported Stress Urinary Incontinence","authors":"Erin H. Hartigan, J. McAuley, M. Lawrence, Carly A. Keafer, A. Ball, A. Michaud, M. DeSilva","doi":"10.1097/JWH.0000000000000141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Objective: To describe pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function, hip mobility, and hip strength profiles and compare measures between women with and without self-reported stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Study Design: Descriptive. Background: Women with SUI present with PFM and hip impairments; yet comparative data in asymptomatic women are lacking. Methods and Measures: Adult women with (n = 21) or without (n = 20) SUI, with regular menses, were recruited. PFM performance, passive hip range-of-motion angles, and hip maximum isometric voluntary contractions (Nm/kg) (Biodex) were measured. Values were compared between groups and legs (dominant [Dom] and nondominant [Non-dom]) (significance: P < .05). Results: Women with SUI were older (P < .001), had higher parity, more tender points (Dom, P = .020), greater prone hip internal rotation (IR) angles (Non-dom, P = .025), lesser flexibility per Ober test (Non-dom, P = .013; Dom, P = .050), lower seated hip external rotation (ER) force (Non-dom, P = .008; Dom, P = .033), and lower hip abduction force (Non-dom and Dom, P < .001) than women without SUI. Leg differences for the SUI group were prone hip IR angles (P = .033), seated hip IR force (P = .015), and prone hip ER force (P < .001). Leg differences in women without SUI were PFM power (P = .005), prone hip angles (IR, P = .038; ER, P = .004), and prone hip ER force (P < .001). Conclusions: The lack of significant differences in PFM function between the 2 groups was unexpected. Greater hip strength and mobility along with unique between-leg differences may suggest a coping mechanism in asymptomatic women with similar PFM function as women with SUI. Investigating relationships among PFM and hip profiles and severity of SUI appears warranted. We have included a Video Abstract that highlights interesting findings in our article (see the Video Abstract, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JWHPT/A23)","PeriodicalId":74018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health physical therapy","volume":"220 1","pages":"160 - 170"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/JWH.0000000000000141","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health physical therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JWH.0000000000000141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Objective: To describe pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function, hip mobility, and hip strength profiles and compare measures between women with and without self-reported stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Study Design: Descriptive. Background: Women with SUI present with PFM and hip impairments; yet comparative data in asymptomatic women are lacking. Methods and Measures: Adult women with (n = 21) or without (n = 20) SUI, with regular menses, were recruited. PFM performance, passive hip range-of-motion angles, and hip maximum isometric voluntary contractions (Nm/kg) (Biodex) were measured. Values were compared between groups and legs (dominant [Dom] and nondominant [Non-dom]) (significance: P < .05). Results: Women with SUI were older (P < .001), had higher parity, more tender points (Dom, P = .020), greater prone hip internal rotation (IR) angles (Non-dom, P = .025), lesser flexibility per Ober test (Non-dom, P = .013; Dom, P = .050), lower seated hip external rotation (ER) force (Non-dom, P = .008; Dom, P = .033), and lower hip abduction force (Non-dom and Dom, P < .001) than women without SUI. Leg differences for the SUI group were prone hip IR angles (P = .033), seated hip IR force (P = .015), and prone hip ER force (P < .001). Leg differences in women without SUI were PFM power (P = .005), prone hip angles (IR, P = .038; ER, P = .004), and prone hip ER force (P < .001). Conclusions: The lack of significant differences in PFM function between the 2 groups was unexpected. Greater hip strength and mobility along with unique between-leg differences may suggest a coping mechanism in asymptomatic women with similar PFM function as women with SUI. Investigating relationships among PFM and hip profiles and severity of SUI appears warranted. We have included a Video Abstract that highlights interesting findings in our article (see the Video Abstract, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JWHPT/A23)