Existe diferença na contratilidade da musculatura do assoalho pélvico feminino em diversas posições? Is there any difference between female pelvic floor muscle contractility in different positions?

Abstract

OBJETIVO: avaliar e comparar resultados da eletromiografia de superfície do assoalho pélvico feminino em diversas posições (decúbito dorsal, na posição sentada e ortostática). MÉTODOS: foram avaliadas 26 mulheres submetidas a um protocolo de exercícios para o fortalecimento do assoalho pélvico como tratamento da incontinência urinária de esforço por hipermobilidade do colo vesical. Utilizou-se sensor intravaginal conectado ao equipamento Myotrac 3G TM e a avaliação consistia em: 60 segundos iniciais de repouso, cinco contrações fásicas, uma contração tônica de 10 segundos e outra de 20 segundos. As amplitudes destas contrações foram obtidas pela diferença entre a amplitude final da contração menos a amplitude de repouso (em µV) e foram comparadas com o uso do teste de Wilcoxon para amostras pareadas (pPURPOSE: to evaluate and compare results of female pelvic floor surface electromyography in different positions: lying, sitting and standing. METHODS: twenty-six women with the diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence treated with a protocol of exercises to strengthen the pelvic floor muscle were evaluated. Pelvic floor surface electromyography was performed with an intravaginal sensor connected to Myotrac 3G TM equipment, as follows: initial rest of 60 s, five phasic contractions, one 10-s tonic contraction and one 20-s tonic contraction. The amplitudes were obtained from the difference between the final contraction amplitude and the amplitude at rest (in µV). Wilcoxon test was applied for nonparametric data (p value <0.05). RESULTS: the amplitudes of contractions were higher in the lying position, decreasing in the sitting and standing positions. In the lying position, the median values of phasic and tonic contractions were 23.5 (5-73), 18.0 (3-58) and 17.0 (2-48), respectively. In the sitting position, they were 20.0 (2-69), 16.0 (0-58) and 15.5 (1-48). In the standing position they were 16.5 (3-67), 12.5 (2-54) and 13.5 (2-41). All amplitude values were significantly lower in the standing position compared to the lying position (p<0.001, p<0.001 and p=0.003). Similar results were also found in comparison to the sitting position. However, there was no significant difference between the lying and the sitting positions. CONCLUSION: all female pelvic floor contraction amplitudes were lower in the standing position, suggesting that the muscle strength should be intensified in that position.

Keywords

• Incontinência urinária de esforço
• Assoalho pélvico
• Eletromiografia
• Stress urinary incontinence
• Pelvic floor
• Electromyography