Defining “normal recovery” of pelvic floor function and appearance in a high-risk vaginal delivery cohort
Introduction and hypothesis
Childbirth pelvic floor trauma leads to pelvic floor disorders. Identification of significant injuries would facilitate intervention for recovery. Our objectives were to identify differences in pelvic floor appearance and function following delivery and patterns of normal recovery in women sustaining high-risk labor events.
We completed a prospective cohort study comparing women undergoing vaginal births involving risk factors for pelvic floor injury with women undergoing cesareans. Data were collected on multidimensional factors including levator ani muscle (LA) tears. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to compare the groups. We identified potential markers of pelvic floor injury based on effect size.
Eighty-two women post-vaginal delivery and 30 women post-cesarean enrolled. The vaginal group had decreased perineal body length between early postpartum, 6 weeks (p < 0.001), and 6 months (p = 0.001). POP-Q points did not change between any time point (all p > 0.05). Measures of strength improved between each time point (all p < 0.002). When compared with cesarean delivery, women post-vaginal birth had longer genital hiatus and lower anterior and posterior vaginal walls (all p < 0.05). Based on theoretical considerations and effect sizes, those with Bp ≥0 cm, Kegel force ≤1.50 N, and/or an LA tear on imaging were considered to have significant pelvic floor injury. Using this definition, at 6 weeks, 27 (46.4%) women were classified as injured. At 6 months, 13 (29.6%) remained injured.
We propose that pelvic floor muscle strength, posterior vaginal wall support, and imaging consistent with LA tear are potential indicators of abnormal or prolonged recovery in this cohort with high-risk labor events.
KeywordsBirth injury Birth recovery Levator ani injury Vaginal birth
Funding for this research was provided by an anonymous donor and by The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant P50 HD044406. Support for REDCap is provided by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) grant CTSA: UL1TR000433.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 5.Woodley SJ, Boyle R, Cody JD, Morkved S, Hay-Smith EJC. Pelvic floor muscle training for prevention and treatment of urinary and faecal incontinence in antenatal and postnatal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;12:CD007471. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007471.pub3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Rogers RG, Leeman LM, Borders N, Qualls C, Fullilove AM, Teaf D, et al. Contribution of the second stage of labour to pelvic floor dysfunction: a prospective cohort comparison of nulliparous women. BJOG. 2014;121(9):1145–53; discussion 1154. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12571.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.Kearney R, Miller JM, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO. Obstetric factors associated with levator ani muscle injury after vaginal birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(1):144–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000194063.63206.1c.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Memon HU, Blomquist JL, Dietz HP, Pierce CB, Weinstein MM, Handa VL. Comparison of levator ani muscle avulsion injury after forceps-assisted and vacuum-assisted vaginal childbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(5):1080–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000825.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Messelink B, Benson T, Berghmans B, Bo K, Corcos J, Fowler C, et al. Standardization of terminology of pelvic floor muscle function and dysfunction: report from the Pelvic Floor Clinical Assessment Group of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2005;24(4):374–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20144.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Laycock J (ed) (1994) Clinical evaluation of the pelvic floor. Pelvic floor re-education: principles and practice. London: Springer.Google Scholar
- 22.Ashton-Miller JA, Zielinski R, DeLancey JO, Miller JM. Validity and reliability of an instrumented speculum designed to minimize the effect of intra-abdominal pressure on the measurement of pelvic floor muscle strength. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014;29(10):1146–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar