International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 66–68 | Cite as

Pudendal nerve function during pregnancy and after delivery

  • T. Tetzschner
  • M. Sørensen
  • G. Lose
  • J. Christiansen
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess pudendal nerve function serially during pregnancy and after delivery. Twenty-eight women participated at 14, 30 and 36 weeks of pregnancy and 12 weeks postpartum. A prospective study of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency during pregnancy and after delivery was carried out. Results showed that pudendal nerve terminal motor latency did not increase significantly during pregnancy but increased significantly after delivery.

Keywords

Nerve damage Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency Pregnancy Vaginal simulation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Keighly MRB, Williams NS. Surgery of the anus, rectum and colon. WB Saunders 1993Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tetzschner T, Sørensen M, Lose G, Christiansen J. Anal or urinary incontinence in women with obstetric anal sphincter rupture.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;103:1034–1040Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tetzschner T, Sørensen M, Jønson L, Lose G, Christiansen J. Delivery and pudendal nerve function.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:324–331PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN. Pudendal nerve damage during labour: prospective study before and after childbirth.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101-22–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrams P, Blavais JG, Stanron SL, Andersen ST. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function.Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1988;114:5–19Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tetzschner T, Sørensen M, Lose G, Christiansen J. Vaginal pudendal nerve stimulation: a new technique for assessment of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency.Acta Obst Gynecol Scand 1997;76:294–299Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991;107–109,186–193Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Multipel significance test: the Bonferroni method.Br Med J 1995;310:170Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Snooks SJ, Setchel M, Swash M, Henry MM. Injury to innervation of pelvis floor sphincter musculature in childbirth.Lancet 1984;36:546–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Snooks SJ, Badenoch DF, Tiptaft RC, Swash M. Perineal nerve damage in genuine stress urinary incontinence.Br J Urol 1985;57:422–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Tetzschner
    • 1
  • M. Sørensen
    • 1
  • G. Lose
    • 1
  • J. Christiansen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Copenhagen, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Glostrup County HospitalUniversity of CopenhagenGlostrupDenmark
  2. 2.Herlev County HospitalUniversity of CopehhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations