Search

Question: In women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), what is the average effect of the addition of perioperative pelvic floor muscle training on pelvic organ prolapse symptoms, pelvic floor muscle strength, quality of life, sexual function and perceived improvement after surgery?, Design: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors, and intention-to-treat analysis., Participants: Ninety-six women with an indication for POP surgery., Intervention: The experimental group received a 9-week pelvic floor muscle training protocol with four sessions before the surgery and seven sessions after the surgery. The control group received surgery only., Outcome Measures: Symptoms were assessed using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), which is scored from 0 'unaffected' to 300 'worst affected'. Secondary outcomes were assessed using vaginal manometry, validated questionnaires and Patient Global Impression of Improvement, which is scored from 1 'very much better' to 7 'very much worse'. All participants were evaluated 15 days before surgery, and at Days 40 and 90 after surgery., Results: There was no substantial difference in POP symptoms between the experimental and control groups at Day 40 (31 (SD 24) versus 38 (SD 42), adjusted mean difference -6, 95% CI -25 to 13) or Day 90 (27 (SD 27) versus 33 (SD 33), adjusted mean difference -4, 95% CI -23 to 14). The experimental group perceived marginally greater global improvement than the control group; mean difference -0.4 (95% CI -0.8 to -0.1) at Day 90. However, the estimated effect of additional perioperative pelvic floor muscle training was estimated to be not beneficial enough to be considered worthwhile for any other secondary outcomes., Conclusion: In women undergoing POP surgery, additional perioperative pelvic floor muscle training had negligibly small effects on POP symptoms, pelvic floor muscle strength, quality of life or sexual function., Trial Registration: ReBEC, RBR-29kgz5., (Copyright © 2019 Australian Physiotherapy Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Questions: In the active phase of the first stage of labour, does transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) relieve pain or change its location? Does TENS delay the request for neuraxial analgesia during labour? Does TENS produce any harmful effects in the mother or the foetus? Are women in labour satisfied with the care provided?, Design: Randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding for some outcomes, and intention-to-treat analysis., Participants: Forty-six low-risk, primigravida parturients with a gestational age > 37 weeks, cervical dilation of 4cm, and without the use of any medications from hospital admission until randomisation., Intervention: The principal investigator applied TENS to the experimental group for 30minutes starting at the beginning of the active phase of labour. A second investigator assessed the outcomes in both the control and experimental groups. Both groups received routine perinatal care., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was pain severity after the intervention period, which was assessed using the 100-mm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included: pain location, duration of the active phase of labour, time to pharmacological labour analgesia, mode of birth, neonatal outcomes, and the participant's satisfaction with the care provided., Results: After the intervention, a significant mean difference in change in pain of 15mm was observed favouring the experimental group (95% CI 2 to 27). The application of TENS did not alter the location or distribution of the pain. The mean time to pharmacological analgesia after the intervention was 5.0hours (95% CI 4.1 to 5.9) longer in the experimental group. The intervention did not significantly impact the other maternal and neonatal outcomes. Participants in both groups were satisfied with the care provided during labour., Conclusion: TENS produces a significant decrease in pain during labour and postpones the need for pharmacological analgesia for pain relief., Trial Registration: NCT01600495., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Question: Does massage relieve pain in the active phase of labour?, Design: Randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding for some outcomes, and intention-to-treat analysis., Participants: 46 women pregnant at ≥ 37 weeks gestation with a single fetus, with spontaneous onset of labour, 4-5cm of cervical dilation, intact ovular membranes, and no use of medication after admission to hospital., Intervention: Experimental group participants received a 30-min lumbar massage by a physiotherapist during the active phase of labour. A physiotherapist attended control group participants for the same period but only answered questions. Both groups received routine perinatal care., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was pain severity measured on a 100mm visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, pain location, and time to analgesic medication use. After labour, a blinded researcher also recorded duration of labour, route of delivery, neonatal outcomes, and the participant's satisfaction with the physiotherapist during labour., Results: At the end of the intervention, pain severity was 52mm (SD 20) in the experimental group and 72mm (SD 15) in control group, which was significantly different with a mean difference of 20mm (95% CI 10 to 31). The groups did not differ significantly on the other pain-related outcome measures. Obstetric outcomes were also similar between the groups except the duration of labour, which was 6.8hr (SD 1.6) in the experimental group and 5.7hr (SD 1.5) in the control group, mean difference 1.1hr (95% CI 0.2 to 2.0). Patients in both groups were satisfied with the care provided by the physiotherapist., Conclusion: Massage reduced the severity of pain in labour, despite not changing its characteristics and location., (Copyright © 2013 Australian Physiotherapy Association. Published by .. All rights reserved.)