Recovery from pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms in the postpartum is associated with the duration of the second stage of labor
- 63 Downloads
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.
KeywordsColorectal 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
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.
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 4.Spellacy E (2001) Urinary incontinence in pregnancy and the puerperium. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 30(6):634–641. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2001.tb00010.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02570.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827268fa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49, December 2003 (2003) Dystocia and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol 102(6):1445–1454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obstetgynecol.2003.10.011 Google Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03437.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02928.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar