SES and IVES are important treatments to improve the SUI. Both improved the QOL, urinary leakage, and strength and pressure of PFM contraction.

Background: The proper evaluation of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) is essential for choosing the correct treatment. Currently, there is no gold standard for the assessment of female PFM function. Objective: To determine the correlation between vaginal palpation, vaginal squeeze pressure, and electromyographic and ultrasonographic variables of the female PFM. Method: This cross-sectional study evaluated 80 women between 18 and 35 years of age who were nulliparous and had no pelvic floor dysfunction. PFM function was assessed based on digital palpation, vaginal squeeze pressure, electromyographic activity, bilateral diameter of the bulbocavernosus muscles and the amount of bladder neck movement during voluntary PFM contraction using transperineal bi-dimensional ultrasound. The Pearson correlation was used for statistical analysis (p<0.05). Results: There was a strong positive correlation between PFM function and PFM contraction pressure (0.90). In addition, there was a moderate positive correlation between these two variables and PFM electromyographic activity (0.59 and 0.63, respectively) and movement of the bladder neck in relation to the pubic symphysis (0.51 and 0.60, respectively). Conclusions: This study showed that there was a correlation between vaginal palpation, vaginal squeeze pressure, and electromyographic and ultrasonographic variables of the PFM in nulliparous women. The strong correlation between digital palpation and PFM contraction pressure indicated that perineometry could easily be replaced by PFM digital palpation in the absence of equipment.

To analyze the direct (resistance and reactance) and indirect (intra and extracellular total body water) BIA parameters in preeclamptic women, 51 healthy pregnant women and 65 preeclamptic women were submmited to bioelectric impedance on the third trimester of gestation. The significance value adopted was 5%. Preeclamptic women showed lower values for R (448 Ω vs. 542 Ω), Rc (40 Ω vs. 53 Ω) and ICW (49.45% vs. 51%) when compared to control group. They also showed higher values for TBW (49% vs. 47%), TBWcor (41.6% vs. 34%) and ECW (50% vs. 47%). Bioelectric impedance allowed differentiating preeclamptic women from health pregnant women, indicating that preeclampsia changes body compartments during pregnancy. This method can help understand the mechanisms involved in preeclampsia and to be a prediction away of preeclampsia.

No abstract

No abstract