Inter-rater reliability study of the Peritron™ perineometer in pregnant women

Abstract

Good inter-rater reliability was found for the overall sample and first trimester of pregnancy for both mean values and single maximal values of the three MVCs. A good and moderate reliability was respectively found in the second trimester in analyzing the mean and single maximum values of three MVCs.

“Comparative intra‐ and inter‐rater reliability of maximal voluntary contraction with unidigital and bidigital vaginal palpation and construct validity with Peritron manometer”

“…14,15,30 The high correlations found between unidigital and bidigital palpation and manometry suggest that both methods and both vaginal palpation options present similarity in the evaluation and quantification of PFM function. 3 Likewise, other authors reported high correlations between the MOS and unidigital palpation in nulliparous 22 and in heterogeneous elderly women 21 with the Peritron manometer. However, a higher correlation was observed between bidigital palpation and manometry in the present study than those found in other studies.…”

Does pelvic floor muscle maximum voluntary contraction improve after vaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery? A prospective study

“…According to our results MVC measured using manometry remained unchanged postsurgery therefore our hypothesis was refuted. However the average contraction and PFM function assessed using the MOGS improved 40 days after surgery.…”

“…12 PFM manometry has established reliability as a method to assess PFM MVC in various populations of women with and without PFM dysfunction, pregnant, and eldery. [13][14][15] Although no cut-off values of normal resting or squeeze pressure have been established in the literature this tool has been extensively used and recommended as a valid outcome measure to quantify the PFM contraction. 12 Our aim was to assess MVC using manometry pre and postsurgery treatment for correction of POP.…”

Análise da distribuição multivetorial de cargas do assoalho pélvico feminino em diferentes populações

“…Among clinicians, the most typical method for quantification of PF function is digital palpation because it is fast, requires no equipment, and selectively depicts PFM activity better than most available biofeedback devices (Peschers et al 2001b Several manometers van Raalte and Egorov 2015;Ribeiro et al 2016), dynamometers (Dumoulin et al 2004a;Saleme et al 2009;Chamochumbi et al 2012;Romero-Cullerés et al 2017) and EMG techniques Ptaszkowski et al 2015) have been proposed to objectively quantify PF function. However, most of these methods were developed for research purposes, in contrast to the proposed sensor, which is already commercially available and has the advantage of differentiate the effects of maximum contraction of PFMs as opposed to an increase in intra-abdominal pressure (Valsalva) along the vaginal canal (Fig.3).…”

“…The most regularly used quantitative methods include EMG, manometers, and dynamometers . In particular, manometers and dynamometer measurements are considered more direct and objective assessments of PF function than digital palpation Rahmani and MohseniBandpei 2011;Ribeiro et al 2016) and have been used for several purposes Torelli et al 2016;Bø et al 2017b). …”