Investigating the role of the pelvic floor muscles in sexual function and sexual response: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: The pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) have been suggested to play a key role in sexual function and response in women. However, syntheses of the evidence thus far have been limited to interventional studies in women with pelvic pain or pelvic floor disorders, and these studies have failed to fully capture the involvement of the PFMs in a broader population. Aim: We sought to appraise the evidence regarding the role of the PFMs in sexual function/response in women without pelvic pain or pelvic floor disorders. More specifically, we examined the following: (1) effects of treatment modalities targeting the PFMs on sexual function/response, (2) associations between PFM function and sexual function/response, and (3) differences in PFM function between women with and those without sexual dysfunction. Methods: We searched for all available studies in eight electronic databases. We included interventional studies evaluating the effects of PFM modalities on sexual outcomes, as well as observational studies investigating the association between PFM function and sexual outcomes or the differences in PFM function in women with and those without sexual dysfunction. The quality of each study was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses whenever possible, or a narrative synthesis of the results was provided. Main outcomes: The main outcomes were sexual function (based on a questionnaire)/sexual response (based on physiological test), and PFM function (assessment of the PFM parameters such as strength and tone based on various methods). Results: A total of 33 studies were selected, including 14 interventional and 19 observational studies, most of which (31/33) were deemed of moderate or high quality. Ten out of 14 interventional studies in women with and without sexual dysfunctions showed that PFM modalities had a significant effect on sexual function. Regarding the observational studies, a meta-analysis revealed a significant moderate association between PFM strength and sexual function (r = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.08-066). Of the 7 observational studies performed to assess sexual response, all showed that the PFMs were involved in arousal or orgasm. Conflicting results were found in the 3 studies that evaluated differences in PFM function in women with and those without sexual dysfunction. Clinical implications: Our results highlight the contribution of the PFMs in sexual function/response. Strengths and limitations: One strength of this review is the inclusion of a broad range of study designs and outcomes, allowing a thorough synthesis of evidence. However, interpretations of these data should consider risk of bias in the studies, small sample sizes, and the absence of control/comparison groups. Conclusion: The findings of this review support the involvement of the PFMs in sexual function/response in women without pelvic pain or pelvic dysfunction. Well-designed studies should be performed to further investigate PFM modalities as part of the management of sexual dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]