Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
6204770 Clinical Biomechanics 2014 5 Pages PDF
Abstract

•We developed an improved instrumented speculum to measure vaginal closure force.•The improved speculum measurements were unconfounded by intra-abdominal pressure.•We compared speculum measurements to subjective measures of pelvic muscle strength.•The improved speculum had acceptable discriminant validity and repeatability.

BackgroundMeasurements of pelvic floor muscle strength are contaminated by crosstalk from intra-abdominal pressure. We tested an improved instrumented speculum designed to minimize this crosstalk. The hypotheses were that the speculum yields: 1) maximum vaginal closure forces unrelated to intra-abdominal pressure, 2) discriminatory validity between women with strong vs. weak pelvic floor muscles, and 3) acceptable test-retest reliability.MethodsMaximum voluntary vaginal closure force was measured in 40 incontinent women (20-77 years) on two visits spaced one month apart. At the baseline visit, intra-abdominal pressure was also estimated via intra-vesical catheterization during the vaginal closure force measurement. Subjective estimate of pelvic floor muscle strength was also assessed using digital palpation by a skilled examiner to determine group placement as “strong” (n = 31) or “weak” (n = 9).FindingsVaginal closure force was not significantly correlated with intra-abdominal pressure (r = − .26, P = .109). The groups with subjectively scored strong and weak pelvic floor muscles differed significantly by mean [SD] maximum vaginal closure force (3.8 [1.7] vs. 1.9 [0.8] N respectively, P < .01.) Across both time points the mean vaginal closure force was 3.42 [1.67] N with a range of .68 to 9.05 N. Mean Visit 1 and Visit 2 vaginal closure force scores did not differ (3.41 [1.8] and 3.42 [1.6] N, respectively). The vaginal closure force repeatability coefficient was 3.1 N.InterpretationThe improved speculum measured maximum vaginal closure force without evidence of crosstalk from intra-abdominal pressure, while retaining acceptable discriminant validity and repeatability.

Related Topics
Health Sciences Medicine and Dentistry Orthopedics, Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation
Authors
, , , ,