Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 1, pp 127–133 | Cite as

Recovery from pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms in the postpartum is associated with the duration of the second stage of labor

  • Ella Pardo
  • Reut RotemEmail author
  • Hannah Glinter
  • Miriam Erenberg
  • Lior Yahav
  • Zehava Yohay
  • David Yohay
  • Adi Y. Weintraub
General Gynecology



Pregnancy and labor are known risk factors for pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD). Yet not much is known regarding recovery from PFD. We hypothesized that the recovery from PFD during the postpartum period would be associated with the duration of the second stage of labor (SSL).


We conducted a case–control study of patients who gave birth at the Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel. Those who consented completed the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), a questionnaire developed to measure the extent of injury to the pelvic floor, after delivery and 3-month postpartum. The difference between the scores was calculated, representing recovery of symptoms. The duration of the SSL, and clinical and obstetrical characteristics were retrieved from the patients’ medical records. Wilcoxon rank test was used, assessing the significance of the recovery. The association between the degree of the recovery and the duration of SSL was tested using Mann–Whitney ranking.


A total of 92 patients completed the PFDI-20 after delivery and 3-month postpartum. We found a significant difference between PFD symptoms during pregnancy and 3-month postpartum (P < 0.001). This difference remained consistent in all components of the PFDI-20. In addition, a more profound recovery of colorectal and anal dysfunction (CRAD) symptoms was associated with a shorter duration of the SSL (P = 0.03).


There is a statistically significant recovery of PFD symptoms in the postpartum period. Furthermore, greater recovery from CRAD symptoms is associated with a shorter duration of the SSL.


Colorectal and anal distress Pelvic floor dysfunction In pregnancy Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Postpartum Second stage of labor 



Colorectal and anal distress


Pelvic floor dysfunction


Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Inventory


Pelvic organ prolapse


Urinary distress


Vaginal delivery



This study was conducted as part of the requirements for MD degree from the Goldman Medical School at the Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Author contributions

EP—project management, manuscript writing, data collection, data analysis, RR—data analysis, manuscript writing, HG—data collection, ME—data collection, LY—data analysis, ZY—data collection, DY—data collection, AYW—manuscript editing, project management.


This study received no funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the institutional review board (0199-16-SOR).

Human and animal rights statement

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Rogers RG, Leeman LM, Borders N et al (2014) Contribution of the second stage of labour to pelvic floor dysfunction: a prospective cohort comparison of nulliparous women. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 121(9):1145–1153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fonti Y, Giordano R, Cacciatore A, Romano M, La Rosa B, Mammaro A (2009) Post partum pelvic floor changes. J Prenat Med 3(4):57–59Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lavy Y, Sand PK, Kaniel CI, Hochner-Celnikier D (2012) Can pelvic floor injury secondary to delivery be prevented? Int Urogynecol J 23(2):165–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spellacy E (2001) Urinary incontinence in pregnancy and the puerperium. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 30(6):634–641. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dieter AA, Wilkins MF, Wu JM (2015) Epidemiological trends and future care needs for pelvic floor disorders. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 27(5):380–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen RE, Hosker GL, Smith ARB, Warrell DW (1990) Pelvic floor damage and childbirth: a neurophysiological study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 97(9):770–779. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zong W, Jallah ZC, Stein SE, Abramowitch SD, Moalli PA (2010) Repetitive mechanical stretch increases extracellular collagenase activity in vaginal fibroblasts. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 16(5):257–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bozkurt M, Yumru AE, Şahin L (2014) Pelvic floor dysfunction, and effects of pregnancy and mode of delivery on pelvic floor. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 53(4):452–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petros P (2010) The female pelvic floor: function, dysfunction and management according to the integral theory. Springer, Berlin. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petros P (2011) The integral system. Cent Eur J Urol 64(3):110–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rostaminia G, Peck JD, Van Delft K, Thakar R, Sultan A, Shobeiri SA (2016) New measures for predicting birth-related pelvic floor trauma. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 22(5):292–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yohay D, Weintraub AY, Mauer-Perry N et al (2016) Prevalence and trends of pelvic floor disorders in late pregnancy and after delivery in a cohort of Israeli women using the PFDI-20. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 200:35–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nygaard IE, Clark E, Clark L et al (2017) Physical and cultural determinants of postpartum pelvic floor support and symptoms following vaginal delivery: a protocol for a mixed-methods prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 7(1):e014252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Utomo E, Blok BF, Steensma AB, Korfage IJ (2014) Validation of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7) in a Dutch population. Int Urogynecol J 25(4):531–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lowenstein L, Levy G, Chen KO, Ginath S, Condrea A, Padoa A (2012) Validation of Hebrew versions of the pelvic floor distress inventory, pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire, and the urgency, severity and impact questionnaire. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 18(6):329–331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC (2005) Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 193(1):103–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49, December 2003 (2003) Dystocia and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol 102(6):1445–1454. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kilpatrick SJ, Laros RK (1989) Characteristics of normal labor. Obstet Gynecol 74(1):85–87. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Fraser W (2010) The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 115(4):705–710. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wesnes SL, Hunskaar S, Bo K, Rortveit G (2009) The effect of urinary incontinence status during pregnancy and delivery mode on incontinence postpartum. A cohort study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 116(5):700–707. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mason L, Glenn S, Walton I, Appleton C (1999) The prevalence of stress incontinence during pregnancy and following delivery. Midwifery 15(2):120–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meston CM (2011) Validation of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in women with female orgasmic disorder and in women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. J Sex Marital Ther 29(1):39–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gartland D, Donath S, MacArthur C, Brown SJ (2012) The onset, recurrence and associated obstetric risk factors for urinary incontinence in the first 18 months after a first birth: an Australian nulliparous cohort study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 119(11):1361–1369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brown SJ, Gartland D, Donath S, MacArthurc C (2011) Effects of prolonged second stage, method of birth, timing of caesarean section and other obstetric risk factors on postnatal urinary incontinence: an Australian nulliparous cohort study. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 118(8):991–1000. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Kessel K, Reed S, Newton K, Meier A, Lentz G (2001) The second stage of labor and stress urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1571–1575. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Brummen HJ, Bruinse HW, van de Pol G, Heintz APM, van der Vaart CH (2006) Defecatory symptoms during and after the first pregnancy: prevalences and associated factors. Int Urogynecol J 17(3):224–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ella Pardo
    • 2
  • Reut Rotem
    • 3
    Email author
  • Hannah Glinter
    • 1
  • Miriam Erenberg
    • 1
  • Lior Yahav
    • 1
  • Zehava Yohay
    • 1
  • David Yohay
    • 1
  • Adi Y. Weintraub
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySoroka University Medical CenterBeer ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Joyce Irving Goldman Medical SchoolBen Gurion University of the NegevBeer ShevaIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyShaare Zedek Medical Center, affiliated with the Hebrew University Medical School of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations