Analysis of the status quo of pelvic floor muscle and the effect of pelvic floor muscle training in second pregnant women

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to investigate the current situation of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) in the second trimester postpartum 42 days by detecting the electrophysiological indexes of PFM on pelvic floor rehabilitation after 2 months.

Methods: In total, 198 cases of second child puerpera were selected, who were delivered in our hospital between June 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020, and underwent outpatient reexamination 42 days after delivery.

Results: Except for the rest post-baseline stage values, the pelvic floor surface electromyography evaluation values significantly differed from each other at the considered time points in group A, P < .05; on day 72 in group B, no obvious improvement in the evaluation values was observed as than those on day 42 (P > .05) except for the endurance contractions stage values. However, on day 102, all values were markedly different at each considered time point (P < .05). On day 102 postpartum, the evaluation values of group A in the rest pre-baseline stage, the time before and after peak of phasic (flick) contractions stage, and the endurance contractions stage were significantly improved to those in group B with all P < .05. On day 42 after parturition, each index of the tonic contractions stage was higher after spontaneous labor than that after cesarean; the differences were all significant, P < .05, but on day 102 postpartum, all of the values exhibited no difference between the 2 modes. In only the phasic (flick) contractions stage at 42th, were the values of younger mothers obviously higher, P = .025; the other stage values for different ages of women during different time periods were not statistically significant, P > .05.

Conclusions: In the short term, the effect of biofeedback plus electrical stimulation on the PFM function in second pregnant women was better than that of the Kegel exercise, but with time, there was no significant difference between the 2 training methods on the recovery of the PFM.

Figure 1.

Pairwise comparison among 3 time points in group A. (A) Average mean amplitude (Rest pre-baseline); (B) Mean amplitude variability (Rest pre-baseline); (C) Average peak amplitude (Phasic (flick) contractions); (D) Time before peak (Phasic (flick) contractions); (E) Time after peak (Phasic (flick) contractions); (F) Average peak amplitude (Tonic contractions); (G) Average mean amplitude (Tonic contractions); (H) Mean amplitude variability (Tonic contractions); (I) Average mean amplitude (Endurance contractions); (J) Mean amplitude variability (Endurance contractions); (K) Average mean amplitude (Rest post-baseline); (L) Mean amplitude variability (Rest post-baseline).

Figure 2.

Pairwise comparison among 3 time points in group B. (A) Average mean amplitude (Rest pre-baseline); (B) Mean amplitude variability (Rest pre-baseline); (C) Average peak amplitude (Phasic (flick) contractions); (D) Time before peak (Phasic (flick) contractions); (E) Time after peak (Phasic (flick) contractions); (F) Average peak amplitude (Tonic contractions); (G) Average mean amplitude (Tonic contractions); (H) Mean amplitude variability (Tonic contractions); (I) Average mean amplitude (Endurance contractions); (J) Mean amplitude variability (Endurance contractions); (K) Average mean amplitude (Rest post-baseline); (L) Mean amplitude variability (Rest post-baseline).