Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorDuarte, Thaiana Bezerra
dc.contributor.authorBø, Kari
dc.contributor.authorBrito, Luiz Gustavo O.
dc.contributor.authorBueno, Sabrina M.
dc.contributor.authorBarcelos, Thays M.R.
dc.contributor.authorBonacin, Marília A.P.
dc.contributor.authorFerreira, Cristine Homsi Jorge
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-12T06:40:32Z
dc.date.available2020-05-12T06:40:32Z
dc.date.created2020-01-13T10:10:59Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Physiotherapy. 2019, 66(1), 27-32.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1836-9553
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/2653979
dc.descriptionThis is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).en_US
dc.description.abstractQuestion: In women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), what is the average effect of the addition of perioperative pelvic floor muscle training on pelvic organ prolapse symptoms, pelvic floor muscle strength, quality of life, sexual function and perceived improvement after surgery? Design: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors, and intention-to-treat analysis. Participants: Ninety-six women with an indication for POP surgery. Intervention: The experimental group received a 9-week pelvic floor muscle training protocol with four sessions before the surgery and seven sessions after the surgery. The control group received surgery only. Outcome measures: Symptoms were assessed using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), which is scored from 0 ‘unaffected’ to 300 ‘worst affected’. Secondary outcomes were assessed using vaginal manometry, validated questionnaires and Patient Global Impression of Improvement, which is scored from 1 ‘very much better’ to 7 ‘very much worse’. All participants were evaluated 15 days before surgery, and at Days 40 and 90 after surgery. Results: There was no substantial difference in POP symptoms between the experimental and control groups at Day 40 (31 (SD 24) versus 38 (SD 42), adjusted mean difference −6, 95% CI −25 to 13) or Day 90 (27 (SD 27) versus 33 (SD 33), adjusted mean difference −4, 95% CI −23 to 14). The experimental group perceived marginally greater global improvement than the control group; mean difference −0.4 (95% CI −0.8 to −0.1) at Day 90. However, the estimated effect of additional perioperative pelvic floor muscle training was estimated to be not beneficial enough to be considered worthwhile for any other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: In women undergoing POP surgery, additional perioperative pelvic floor muscle training had negligibly small effects on POP symptoms, pelvic floor muscle strength, quality of life or sexual function.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.subjectpelvic floor muscle trainingen_US
dc.subjectpelvic organ prolapseen_US
dc.subjecturogynaecologyen_US
dc.subjectwomen's healthen_US
dc.subjectphysical therapyen_US
dc.titlePerioperative pelvic floor muscle training did not improve outcomes in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a randomised trialen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2019 Australian Physiotherapy Association.en_US
dc.source.pagenumber27-32en_US
dc.source.journalJournal of Physiotherapyen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jphys.2019.11.013
dc.identifier.cristin1771107
dc.description.localcodeSeksjon for idrettsmedisinske fag / Department of Sports Medicineen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel