Anatomical and functional conditions of the pelvic floor muscles after assisted vaginal delivery

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The main function of the muscles of the perineum is to preserve the syntopy and topography of the organs of the abdominal cavity and small pelvis. Clinically, various groups of complaints that significantly worsen the patient’s quality of life manifest pelvic floor muscle failure. Currently, one of the most commonly discussed causes of pelvic organ prolapse is still considered obstetric trauma.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the anatomical and functional conditions of the pelvic floor muscles after normal physiologic childbirth and childbirth with the use of obstetric forceps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in Maternity Hospital No. 13 (Saint Petersburg, Russia) in 2020–2021, which involved 137 patients who delivered through the natural birth canal with the use of obstetric forceps (main group, n = 47) or without the use of delivery instruments (control group, n = 90) six months after delivery. A comprehensive assessment of the condition of the pelvic floor muscles was carried out using the validated PFDI-20 questionnaire and ultrasound examination of the pelvic floor structures at rest. A functional assessment of the condition was carried out using the Pneumatic Pelvic Muscle Trainer XFT-0010.

RESULTS: Evaluating complaints using the PFDI-20 scale revealed that the median was 6.00 ± 1.77 points in the main group and 5.50 ± 1.29 points in the control group, the differences being not significant (p = 0.8). The ultrasound examination showed no significant difference in decreases in the thickness of the tendon center of the perineum and m. bulbocavernosus between the study groups; m. puborectalis thickness in the main group did not differ significantly from the norm either. The assessment of the functional condition of the pelvic floor muscles revealed no significant differences between the patients of the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained demonstrate the safety of the use of obstetric forceps for the anatomical and functional viabilities of the pelvic floor muscles and do not have significant differences compared to childbirth performed without the use of delivery instruments. However, the use of obstetric forceps in the practice of obstetricians and gynecologists can be a reliable tool that does not affect the quality of life of patients in the long term.

About the authors

Vitaly F. Bezhenar

Academician I.P. Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University

Email: bez-vitaliy@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7807-4929
SPIN-code: 8626-7555
Scopus Author ID: 57191963583
ResearcherId: R-7055-2017

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Elena V. Frederiks

Maternity Hospital No. 13

Email: evfrederiks@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2513-6209
SPIN-code: 1174-9903
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Margarita D. Leonova

Maternity Hospital No. 13

Author for correspondence.
Email: _margarita_@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3813-2995
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

Anastasia D. Zharuk

Maternity Hospital No. 13

Email: zharukanastasia@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3854-9563
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Bo K, Frawley HC, Haylen BT, et al. International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2017;36(2):221−244. doi: 10.1002/nau.23107
  2. Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):655−684. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y
  3. Memon HU, Blomquist JL, Dietz HP, et al. Comparison of levator ani muscle avulsion injury after forceps-assisted and vacuum-assisted vaginal childbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(5):1080−1087. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000825
  4. Sukhanov AA, Kukarskaia II. Early prevention and treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction. The spread of the disease in the modern world. Ural Medical Journal. 2018;(6):107–117. (In Russ.). doi: 10.25694/URMJ.2018.04.104
  5. Bezhenar VF, Deriy EK, Ivanov OA, et al. Markers of connective tissue dysfunction in terms of surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Vopr. ginekol. akus. perinatol. (Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology). 2020;19(6):90–95. (In Russ.). doi: 10.20953/1726-1678-2020-6-90-95
  6. Nedostatochnost’ tazovogo dna. Terapiya na osnove dostizheniy nauki i klinicheskoy praktiki. Ed. by V.F. Bezhenar’, G.B. Dikke, E.Yu. Glukhov. Moscow: ABV-press; 2021. 468 p. (In Russ.)
  7. Timoshkova YuL, Shmidt AA, Kurmanbaev TE, et al. Anamnestic risk factors for the development of genital prolapse in women. Vyatskiy meditsinskiy vestnik. 2021;1(69):59–63. (In Russ.). doi: 10.24411/2220-7880-2021-10153
  8. Handa VL, Blomquist JL, Roem J, et al. Longitudinal study of quantitative changes in pelvic organ support among parous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(3):320. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.214
  9. Blomquist JL, Muñoz A, Carroll M, et al. Association of delivery mode with pelvic floor disorders after childbirth. JAMA. 2018;320(23):2438–2447. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.18315
  10. Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, et al. Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears among primiparous women in England between 2000 and 2012: time trends and risk factors. BJOG. 2013;120(12):1516–1525. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12363
  11. Wan L, Xia W, Zhang J. Effect of perineum protection cooperated by two operators in the forceps-assisted vaginal delivery: a case-control study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(1):197–200. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1712699
  12. Chechneva MA, Buyanova SN, Popov AA, et al. Ul’trazvukovaya diagnostika prolapsa genitaliy i nederzhaniya mochi u zhenshchin. Moscow: MEDpress-inform; 2016. (In Russ.)
  13. Muraca GM, Skoll A, Lisonkova S, et al. Perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality among term singletons following midcavity operative vaginal delivery versus caesarean delivery. BJOG. 2018;125(6):693–702. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14820
  14. Harvey MA, Pierce M, Alter JE, et al. Obstetrical anal sphincter injuries (OASIS): prevention, recognition, and repair. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37(12):1131–1148. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30081-0
  15. MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, et al. The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG. 2000;107(12):1460–1470. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11669.x
  16. Eason E, Labrecque M, Marcoux S, et al. Effects of carrying a pregnancy and of method of delivery on urinary incontinence: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2004;4(1):4. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-4-4
  17. Zhu YC, Deng SH, Jiang Q, et al. Correlation between delivery mode and pelvic organ prolapse evaluated by four-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasonography. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:7891–7897. doi: 10.12659/MSM.911343
  18. Korshunov MYu. Pelvic organ prolapse in women: what are the patient expectations of the prospective treatment? Journal of Obstetrics and Women’s Diseases. 2017;66(4):40–45. doi: 10.17816/JOWD66440-45
  19. Urbankova I, Grohregin K, Hanacek J, et al. The effect of the first vaginal birth on pelvic floor anatomy and dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(10):1689–1696. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04044-2

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2022 Bezhenar V.F., Frederiks E.V., Leonova M.D., Zharuk A.D.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies