Symphysis Pubis Dysfunction: Analysis of Risk Factors and Basic Diagnostic Criteria
- Authors: Akhmetova E.S.1, Mochalova M.N.1, Galeeva A.I.1
-
Affiliations:
- Chita State Medical Academy
- Issue: Vol 74, No 2 (2025)
- Pages: 5-10
- Section: Original study articles
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/jowd/article/view/296131
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/JOWD641770
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/HXJVTU
- ID: 296131
Cite item
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symphysis pubis dysfunction is a pregnancy complication with significant statistical variations in incidence due to the lack of clear diagnostic criteria and overdiagnosis. One of the causes of this complication is excessive relaxin production, which induces structural changes in the fibrocartilaginous disc and resorption of the symphyseal margins. During normal pregnancy, this discrepancy is insignificant and amounts to 2–3 mm by the end of the third trimester; it is adaptive in nature, while facilitating the unimpeded passage of the fetus through the mother’s birth canal. However, if the pubic joint is excessively relaxed, it becomes unstable, with discomfort and lumbar or pelvic girdle pain appearing. To diagnose subluxation of the symphysis pubis, various provocative tests, echography, and radiography of the pubic joint are performed. However, the degree of discrepancy in the echographic picture rarely correlates with the severity of the clinical picture.
AIM: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for symphysis pubis dysfunction and assess its ultrasound diagnostic criteria.
METHODS: We analyzed 40 medical histories of pregnant women with symphysis pubis dysfunction and 50 medical histories of those without the pathology. Risk factors were assessed and ultrasound diagnostics of the pubic joint was performed in all women before and after childbirth using Voluson 730 and Logiq 9 expert-class devices in three-dimensional mode with the 5–10 MHz linear sensor.
RESULTS: Most women with symphysis pubis dysfunction were multiparous under 35 years of age. Primiparous women were only diagnosed with grades I and II dysfunction (100%), while 14% of multiparous patients were diagnosed with grade III dysfunction. In patients with symphysis pubis dysfunction, inflammatory diseases of the uterus and appendages, infertility, and polycystic ovary syndrome were more common gynecological pathologies and were detected in 47.5%, 35% and 27.5% of cases versus 14%, 4% and 10% of cases in the control group, respectively (p < 0.05). Grades II and III dysfunction was most often detected in pregnant women with overweight and obesity – in 91.7% of cases (p < 0.05). In all patients with grade I dysfunction, the fetal weight was up to 3,500 g, while in the study groups with grades II and III dysfunction, the baby weighed more than 3,500 g and was large in 66.6% of patients (p < 0.05). During ultrasound examination, 83.3% of patients with grades II and III dysfunction, along with diastasis, revealed symptoms characteristic of inflammation (p < 0.05), and 28% of pregnant women in the control group were diagnosed with pubic symphysis divergence that corresponded to grades I and II dysfunction — 85.7% and 14.3% of cases, respectively. At the same time, no clinical manifestations were detected.
CONCLUSION: Important risk factors for symphysis pubis dysfunction are metabolic and endocrine disorders, inflammatory diseases of the female reproductive organs, repeated childbirth, and fetal weight of over 3,500 g. Ultrasound criteria for diagnosing this condition are not reliable for grade I dysfunction.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Elena S. Akhmetova
Chita State Medical Academy
Email: akhmetlena@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6568-8905
SPIN-code: 7543-2483
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant Professor
Russian Federation, ChitaMarina N. Mochalova
Chita State Medical Academy
Email: marina.mochalova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5941-0181
SPIN-code: 1068-3570
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant Professor
Russian Federation, ChitaAnna I. Galeeva
Chita State Medical Academy
Author for correspondence.
Email: plotkina.ann@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8234-1797
MD
Russian Federation, ChitaReferences
- Yavorskaya SD, Plotnikov IA, Bondarenko AB, et al. Treatment of obstetric ruptures of the pubic symphysis and dysfunction of the pubic articulation. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2018;(9):68–72. EDN: VAJRAD doi: 10.18565/aig.2018.9.68-72
- Noskova OV, Churilov AV, Sviridova VV, et al. Features of the course of symphysiopathy during pregnancy. Bulletin of Hygiene and Epidemiology. 2020;24(1):64–66. EDN: ELYAEH
- Mochalova MN, Mudrov VA, Alekseeva AY. The case of an atypical clinical picture of a subluxation of the pubic joint in a pregnant woman. Journal of Obstetrics and Women’s Diseases. 2020;69(3):57–62. EDN: MVICJK doi: 10.17816/JOWD69357-62.
- Chawla JJ, Arora D, Sandhu N, et al. Pubic joint diastasis: a series of cases and a literature review. Oman Med J. 2017;32(6):510–514. doi: 10.5001/omj.2017.97
- Gudushauri YaG, Lazarev AF, Verzin AV. Operative correction of the consequences of obstetric ruptures of the pubic symphysis. N.N. Priorov Journal of Traumatology and Orthopedics. 2014;(4):15–21. EDN: TIGMBX doi: 10.17816/vto20140415-21
- Borshcheva AA, Pertseva GM, Alekseeva NA. Dysfunction of the pubic articulation as one of the urgent problems of modern obstetrics. Medical Bulletin of the South of Russia. 2021;12(3):44–49. EDN: XIMKMO doi: 10.21886/2219-8075-2021-12-3-44-49
- Logutova LS, Chechneva MA, Petrukhin VA, et al. Ultrasound diagnosis of the symphysis pubis in women. Russian Bulletin of the Obstetrician-gynecologist. 2012;12(6):55–59. EDN: PTTVCN
- Mochalova MN, Akhmetova EU, Kuzmina LA, et al. Subluxation of the pubic articulation in pregnant women with atypical clinical symptoms. Transbaikalian Medical Bulletin. 2024;(1):55–57.
- Ananyev EV. Optimization of diagnostics, tactics of pregnancy and childbirth management in case of dysfunction of the pubic articulation [dissertation abstract]. Moscow; 2012. 24 p. (In Russ.) EDN: QIHXZZ
- Vrbanić TS. Krizobolja – od definicije do dijagnoze [Low back pain – from definition to diagnosis]. Reumatizam. 2011;58(2):105–107. (In Croatian)
- Lardon E, Saint Laurent A, Babineau V, et al. Lumbo-pelvic pain, anxiety, physical activity and method of conception: a prospective cohort study of pregnant women. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):e022508. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022508
- Kovacs FM, Garcia E, Royuela A, et al. Prevalence and factors associated with lower back and pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy: a multicenter study conducted by the National Health Service of Spain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(17):1516–1533. doi: 10.1097/brs.0b013e31824dcb74
- Katonis P, Kampuroglu A, Aggelopoulos A. Lower back pain associated with pregnancy. Hippokratia. 2011;15(3):205–210.
- Cherkasova NY. Forecasting the risk of maternal injury in pregnant women with pathology of long-term symphysis [dissertation abstract]. Moscow; 2016. 24 p. (In Russ.) EDN: ZQCGVJ
- Klipfel IV, Kalygina NA, Yemelyanova NB. Possibilities of ultrasonic research in diagnostics of dysfunction of the pubic joint. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Hospital. 2016;(1):64−66. EDN: YJGYGF
Supplementary files
