The American Urogynecologic Society/The Society of Gynecologic SurgeonsA comparison of perineometer to brink score for assessment of pelvic floor muscle strength
Section snippets
Material and methods
After institutional review board approval was obtained, 100 women were prospectively enrolled in a sequential fashion. All women seen at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for general gynecologic or pelvic floor complaints were eligible for enrollment. Exclusion criteria included a latex allergy, a genital hiatus or vaginal cavity size inadequate to comfortably accommodate the perineometer insert (28 mm in diameter), a degree of pelvic organ prolapse sufficient to prevent
Results
One hundred women were prospectively enrolled and completed the study. Median age was 48 years (22 to 85) and median parity was 2 (0 to 5). There were 18 nulliparous women (18%) and 82 parous women (82%). Forty-six women (46%) reported being postmenopausal, although 22 were currently using oral or vaginal estrogen replacement on a regular basis (Table I).
Interrater reliability for both perineometer and Brink scores is shown in Table II. The correlations of perineometer maximum squeeze pressure
Comment
Vaginal digital palpation represents the most commonly used method to clinically assess pelvic floor muscle strength. It is both a straightforward and clinically practical means of assessing pelvic floor muscle function because it is inexpensive, minimally invasive, and well tolerated and requires no special equipment.
Data are lacking on both the inter- and intrarater reliability of perineometers. The value of an objective, reproducible, and reliable tool to assess pelvic floor strength lies in
Conclusion
This study assesses the inter- and intrarater reliability of readings obtained from a perineometer measuring pressure in centimeters water. Our data suggest excellent interrater reliability, given the high correlation among numerous measurement parameters between paired examiners. Perineometer readings were also well correlated to Brink scores, currently the most commonly used method for clinical assessment of pelvic floor muscle strength. We found a high degree of correlation between
References (14)
Progressive resistance exercise in the functional restoration of the perineal muscles
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1948)- et al.
Magnetic resonance imaging of the levator ani with anatomic correlation
Obstet Gynecol
(1996) Incontinence. The pelvic floor function
Aust Fam Physician
(1989)- et al.
A digital test for pelvic muscle strength in older women with urinary incontinence
Nurs Res
(1989) - et al.
Vaginal palpation of pelvic floor muscle strength: inter-test reproducibility and comparison between palpation and vaginal squeeze pressure
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
(2001) - et al.
A digital test for pelvic muscle strength in women with urinary incontinence
Nurs Res
(1994) - et al.
Dynamic assessment of pelvic floor function in women using the intravaginal device test
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
(1996)
Cited by (86)
Do pelvic floor muscle function parameters differ in women according to continence status? A systematic review
2024, French Journal of UrologyEvidence for increased tone or overactivity of pelvic floor muscles in pelvic health conditions: a systematic review
2023, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyPelvic floor muscle strength and the incidence of pelvic floor disorders after vaginal and cesarean delivery
2020, American Journal of Obstetrics and GynecologyCitation Excerpt :The average peak pressure (in centimeters of water) and contraction duration (in seconds) were recorded. Our protocol for perineometer measurement is based on that described by Hundley et al.13 Peak pressure was classified into 2 groups (<20 cm H2O and ≥20 cm H2O) based on tertiles (one-third of all participants had a peak pressure of <20 cm H2O). Women reporting a latex allergy were excluded, as the tubing used with this device contains latex.
Pelvic organ prolapse as a function of levator ani avulsion, hiatus size, and strength
2019, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Presented at the Joint Scientific Meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and the American Urogynecologic Society, San Diego, California, July 29-31, 2004.