Translate

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Postpartum pelvic floor muscle training and pelvic organ prolapse- a randomized trial of primiparous women

Kari Bo, et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 38.e1-7
MJ Strauhal, PT, DPT, BCB-PMD

Pelvic Physiotherapy Distance Journal Club   December 9, 2015

Primary Aim:  evaluate the effectiveness of a 4 month postpartum PFMT program on stage of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), bladder neck position, and POP symptoms in primiparous women following vaginal delivery

Background: 

  • POP is common and distressing
  • Prevalence of POP differs when based on clinical exam (>30%) versus symptom “bother” (5-10%)
    • When symptomatic, POP causes discomfort, reduced QOL, limitation of ADL’s
  • Lifetime cumulative risk for POP surgery is 7-11%,  reoperation is common, and complications associated with mesh can be severe, warranting early nonsurgical prevention and treatment
  • 3-6 months postpartum occurrence rate of POP > stage II is 18-56%
    • 15-40% of primip wm have a mj. LA defectà when detected by US imaging, postpartum wm with LA defect were 2x as likely to have POP stage II or > than those with intact LA
  • RCT’s have shown that PFMT is effective in reducing POP symptoms and/or stage in middle-aged wm
    • Systematic review concluded Level 1, grade A evidence for PFMT in treatment of POP
    • Assessor blind RCT found that PFMT improved PFM strength and thickness, lifted the bladder neck (BN) and rectal ampulla, narrowed the UGH and reduced mm length in wm with POP

Study Design (Materials and Methods):

  • 2 armed parallel group RCT evaluating the effect of PFMT on stage of POP, BN position, and POP symptoms in primips stratified by LA defects
  • Secondary analysis on the same population that was studied by the same authors addressing prevention and treatment of UI
    • 1st time pregnant women gestational week 22 until 1 yr postpartum
    • Inclusion- vaginal delivery to singleton after > 32 weeks gestation and understands Scandinavian language
      • Instrumented deliveries included (20% or 35/175)- 33 vacuum, 2 forceps
    • Exclusion- cesarean deliveries, 3rd and 4th degree perineal tears (routinely referred to PT!) , serious illness of mom or baby, IU fetal deaths/stillborns
  • Power calculation was not done for POP, but authors assumed a 30% prevalence rate of POP in postpartum period based on calculations in same population UI study and previous studies
  • Women were stratified on mj. LA defects as assessed at 6 weeks postpartum (pretest) by US imaging during maximum PFM contraction as described by Dietz- a method that showed good intra- and interrater reliability shortly after childbirth
  • Participants were randomized in blocks of 10 to either PFMT or control with usual care
  • Outcomes were measured at 6 weeks (pre-test) and 6 months (posttest) postpartum
    • POP stage measured by POPQ during strain in 45 degrees lithotomy, rigorously standardized and measured by 1 of 2 GYN’s
      • No POP = stages 0 and I, POP = stages II or >
    • BN position assessed by 2 GYN’s using US imaging per Schaer (1995) in the sagittal plane

 

    • Symptoms of POP (sensation of bulging) assessed by ICIQ-vag (good reliability, validity, sensitivity to change) but of the 14 questions, only the 2 on perceived bulging were asked

5. Are you aware of a lump or bulge coming down in your vagina?

never                                       0

occasionally                            1

sometimes                               2

most of the time                     3

all of the time                         4

 

6. Do you feel a lump or bulge come out of your vagina, so that you can feel it on the outside or see it on the outside?

never                                       0

occasionally                            1

sometimes                               2

most of the time                     3

all of the time                         4

·         Blinding- GYN’s and PT’s were blinded to symptoms of POP and group allocation

·         PFM

o    2 trained PT’s taught and assessed PFM contraction by with both perineal observation and vaginal palpation

o    PFM strength was measured using a pressure transducer connected to a balloon placed 3.5 cm from the vaginal introitus- the method has shown good reliability and only contractions with simultaneous visible inward mvt of the catheter/perineum were considered correct

·         Intervention

o    At the delivery ward, all wm were recommended PFMT in written form

o    At pre-test (6 weeks postpartum), assessment of PFM and instruction in correct contraction was done for all participants before randomization

o    Intervention group (PFMT group)

§  Attended weekly PFMT class led by PT x 4 months starting at 6-8 weeks postpartum and attendance was documented

§  Were asked to perform 3 sets of 8-12 close to max PFM contractions per day and reported adherence using a training diary

o    Control group

§  No further supervision or f/u during the intervention period, but were not discouraged from performing PFMT on their own

Statistical Analysis and Results

  • 175 primips were randomized into the study, mean age 29.8 years, mean BMI 25.7 kg/m2
    • See Table 1 and Flowchart;  no statistical significant difference between the groups in gestational age, length of 2nd stage labor, infant birthweight and head circumference, or # with instrumented delivery
    • Intervention group
      • 2 wm never met for PFMT, 10 wm lost to f/u = 12 total lost to f/u
      • 87 wm allocated to this group, 75 wm analyzed
      • At 6 months postpartum 2 from this group who at 6 weeks postpartum were unable to correctly contract the PFM had learned this at 6 months postpartum
      • 96% of this group adhered to >80% of group and home PFMT
    • Control group
      • 3 wm lost to f/u
      • 88 wm allocated to this group, 85 analyzed
      • At 6 months postpartum 1 from this group who at 6 weeks postpartum was unable to correctly contract the PFM had learned this at 6 months postpartum (still leaves 4 of 7 who did not perform PFM contraction correctly unaccounted for)
      • 16.5% reported to have done PFMT >3x/week
  • At 6 months postpartum (posttest)
    • Statistically significant difference in change of PFM strength in favor of the PFMT group (they did not report this data in the article)
    • No significant difference in primary outcomes
      • Table 2 POPQ stage- no difference between groups or in change of POP stage between groups
        • Table 4 shows that there is no significant change from pre to posttest between groups in relative risk (RR) of being diagnosed with POPQ stage II (95% CI)
      • Table 3 BN per transperineal US (and point values for POPQ)
      • Table 5 ICIQ-vag (sensation of bulging)
        • # wm with symptoms of bulging inside the vagina was significantly higher in the control group both at pre and posttest

Discussion

  • An intensive PFMT program did not improve POP, BN position or symptoms of bulge in this population of primips after vaginal delivery; nor did outcomes improve in subgroup of wm with mj. LA defects
    • Studies on middle-aged wm with POP have shown improvement in POPQ stage I and in symptoms bother after PFMT
    • Braekken et al, showed a change in BN and rectal ampulla position after PFMT
  • Some women in this study experienced symptom bother and POP at 6 months but not 6 weeks postpartum
    • The authors hypothesized that this was due to a return to optimal physical activity and participation in sports and fitness activities; general physical activity was the same for both groups between the pre and posttest period
    • They expected the supervised PFMT to counteract this in the intervention group
  • Remission of POP in the postpartum period
    • Little knowledge in the literature- there is need for cohort and RCT postpartum studies
    • Elenskaia et al, found worsening POP stage and symptoms from pregnancy at 14 weeks and 1 year postpartum
    • Chen et al, found return to “normal” is not complete at 6 weeks postpartum and continues to 1 year postpartum
  • Strengths of the study
    • RCT design, blinding of assessors, use of supervised training following recommendations for strength training (ACSM), high adherence, use of valid and reliable outcomes
    • # of wm with stage I and II POP and symptoms in this study reflect other cohort studies and appear representative of this population
  • Limitations of the study
    • Some loss to f/u, small sample size in some of the comparisons
    • ICIQ-vag was not validated in the postpartum population (and they only used 2 of the questions!)
  • Other comments
    • Exercise training may be ineffectual due to insufficient dosage or low adherence
      • This study used a training protocol following recommendations for strength training which has shown effect in postpartum wm with UI and middle-aged wm with POP
      • Group training was chosen in this study because the same protocol was effective in prevention and treatment of UI in pregnancy and postpartum
        • Individual training may be required to prevent or treat POP
      • Those allocated to the control group may have wished to be in the PFMT group and therefore exercised more than prescribed for their group (ie, no supervision, f/u, or group PFMT); 16.5% of this group exercised >3x/week
        • Change in PFM strength between the PFMT group and the control group was statistically significant but only the mean 3.6 cm H2O (no report of this data in the article except here)
          • Is this clinically relevant?
          • Did not produce any change in POPQ or symptom report
    • Braekken et al, reported BN elevation of 4.2 mm (95% CI) following PFMT with no change in their control group
      • In this study, both groups demonstrated a mean of 2.0 mm change in BN elevation (Table 3 reports results in cm) which the authors report as nonsignificant
        • Was the present program less effective?  Or, did the postpartum hormonal status of the wm negatively influence connective tissue and muscle function (the authors did not report data on breastfeeding status).
    • There were no wm in this study that had POPQ stage III.  Would the program have been more effective in a group with more severe POP?
  • Future studies:  more RCT’s that include supervised individual training rather than, or in addition to, group training
  • High prevalence of POP (and impact on QOL) warrant high priority to early prevention and treatment

Journal Club Discussion (in addition to questions proposed in the body of this outline)

  • What are the implications for clinical practice from this study?
  • Will the results of this study change your current practice pattern with wm who experience POP?
  • Should PT’s be seeing only wm who report “bother” from POP or any wm who has POP from examination?
  • Any comments of the study design, stats, and conclusions made by the authors?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.