Publication:
Development of a pelvic floor evaluation device

dc.contributor.authorJittima Manonaien_US
dc.contributor.authorSakuntala Kamthawornen_US
dc.contributor.authorKuson Petsarben_US
dc.contributor.authorRujira Wattanayingcharoenchaien_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-23T11:00:14Z
dc.date.available2018-11-23T11:00:14Z
dc.date.issued2015-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2015, Medical Association of Thailand. All rights reserved. Objective: To validate the device and investigate the effect of this device on symptoms, quality of life, and pelvic floor muscle strength. Material and Method: The device was designed to measure vaginal pressure changes using air-pressure balloon and abdominal wall muscle activities using surface electromyography. To test the accuracy of the device, for vaginal pressure measurement, a Mercury sphygmomanometer was used as a gold standard, and for abdominal wall muscle activity, a standard biofeedback machine was used as a reference device. A randomized, controlled trial was conducted in sixty-one women with stress urinary incontinence. They were randomly divided into two groups undergoing PFMT with a single 15-minute biofeedback session (BF + PFMT group) or without biofeedback (PFMT group). The pelvic floor muscle strength, abdominal wall muscle activity and incontinence-specific quality of life questionnaire (I-QOL), measurements were evaluated at baseline and at 8- and 16-week after treatment. Results: The accuracy of vaginal probe pressure perineometry was 98% compared to a standard sphygmomanometer. The device could detect abdominal wall muscles activities at 10 milliseconds (100 Hz), 20 milliseconds (50 Hz), and 50 milliseconds (20 Hz). After 8 and 16 weeks of treatment, there were statistically significant intra-group differences in the maximum vaginal squeeze pressure in both groups. However, the inter-group differences were not demonstrated. The proportion of women who performed pelvic floor muscle exercise correctly was significantly higher in the BF + PFMT group (72.41%) compared to the PFMT group (21.88%) at week 16 (p<0.05). Conclusion: The simple pelvic floor muscle strength evaluation device might be helpful in pelvic floor muscle training in a low resource setting.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.98, No.3 (2015), 219-225en_US
dc.identifier.issn01252208en_US
dc.identifier.issn01252208en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84929509091en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/36734
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84929509091&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleDevelopment of a pelvic floor evaluation deviceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84929509091&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections