Pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain: an update
- 35k Downloads
A large number of scientists from a wide range of medical and surgical disciplines have reported on the existence and characteristics of the clinical syndrome of pelvic girdle pain during or after pregnancy. This syndrome refers to a musculoskeletal type of persistent pain localised at the anterior and/or posterior aspect of the pelvic ring. The pain may radiate across the hip joint and the thigh bones. The symptoms may begin either during the first trimester of pregnancy, at labour or even during the postpartum period. The physiological processes characterising this clinical entity remain obscure. In this review, the definition and epidemiology, as well as a proposed diagnostic algorithm and treatment options, are presented. Ongoing research is desirable to establish clear management strategies that are based on the pathophysiologic mechanisms responsible for the escalation of the syndrome's symptoms to a fraction of the population of pregnant women.
Pain localised at the pelvic girdle during and after pregnancy has been identified and recorded as an entity since the 4th century BC by Hippocrates. Contemporary medical research since the early 20th century has attempted to clarify the spectrum of the different pathologies that this clinical syndrome represents [1, 2, 3].
Existing literature evidence related to pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain.
Number of studies
Focus of journals,an
Era of publications
Origin of publicationsb
Physioth, 1 
1985-1995, 1 
1996-2005, 1 
ESP, 1 
GER, 1 
RSA, 1 
Gen Surg, 1 
Orthop, 1 
Radiology, 1 
1996-2005, 1 
>2005, 1 
BRA, 1 
POL, 1 
TUR, 1 
UK, 1 
Rheumat, 1 
NED, 1 
"Pelvic relaxation pain"
Orthop, 1 
Rheumat, 1 
AUS, 1 
CZE, 1 
ESP, 1 
NZ, 1 
TUR, 1 
UK, 1 
Psych, 1 
AUS, 1 
SWE, 1 
UK, 1 
"Pelvic girdle pain" or "Pelvic pain"
[5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 34, 39, 40, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 77, 81, 83, 86, 88, 91, 92, 110, 127, 133, 134, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 17, 26, 37, 38, 41, 49, 107, 219, 220, 221, 222]
Anesth, 1 
Radiology, 1 
<1985, 1 
1985-1995, 1 
CAN, 1 
CHN, 1 
FRA, 1 
IND, 1 
IRAN, 1 
MEX, 1 
RSA, 1 
"Posterior pelvic pain"
Nursing, 1 
AUS, 1 
JAP, 1 
UK, 1 
"Low back pain"
Anesth, 1 
Physioth, 1 
FIN, 1 
GER, 1 
HK, 1 
TAI, 1 
Biomech, 1 
CAN, 1 
USA, 1 
"Symphysis pubis dysfunction" or "SPD"
Anesth, 1 
NZ, 1 
"Pregnancy related pelvic girdle pain" or "PPGP"
Orthop, 1 
1996-2005, 1 
Total, n (%)
Anesth, 3 (1.4%)
Biomech, 1 (0.5%)
Gen Med, 43 (20.6%)
Gen Surg, 1 (0.5%)
Nursing, 9 (4.3%)
Obstetr, 74 (35.4%)
Orthop, 8 (3.8%)
Physioth, 14 (6.7%)
Psych, 1 (0.5%)
Radiology, 4 (1.9%)
Rheumat, 7 (3.3%)
Spine, 42 (20.1%)
Urology, 2 (1.0%)
<1985, 34 (16.3%)
1985-1995, 29 (13.9%)
1996-2005, 77 (36.8%)
>2005, 69 (33.0%)
AUS, 8 (3.8%)
BRA, 1 (0.5%)
CAN, 4 (1.9%)
CHN, 1 (0.5%)
CZE, 1 (0.5%)
DEN, 24 (11.5%)
ESP, 2 (1.0%)
FIN, 1 (0.5%)
FRA, 3 (1.4%)
GER, 2 (1.0%)
HK, 1 (0.5%)
IND, 1 (0.5%)
IRAN, 1 (0.5%), JAP, 1 (0.5%) MEX, 1 (0.5%) NED, 34 (16.3%) NOR, 24 (11.5%) NZ, 2 (1.0%) POL, 1 (0.5%) RSA, 2 (1.0%) SWE, 42 (20.1%) THA, 1 (0.5%) TUR, 4 (1.9%) UK, 23 (11.0%) USA, 24 (11.5%)
The scientific and clinical implications of PPGP require the multidisciplinary interaction of a wide number of health-related specialties, including obstetrics and gynaecology, general medicine, orthopaedic surgery, physiotherapy, rheumatology and clinical psychiatry (Table 1). This important parameter is another strong factor that affects the discrepancy and fragmentation of the reported data between different journals and scientists not directly communicating with each other.
Lately, efforts to establish guidelines and accurate definitions of the manifestations of this clinical syndrome have been ongoing and offer the basis for further international research . Following the publication of the European Guidelines in 2005 , the authors of 49 subsequent clinical studies [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53] incorporated, to a degree, the recommended methodology. In parallel, the patient community in the modern era of widespread interactive communications has launched a number of websites and forums focusing on the problem and seeking advice and guidance [54, 55, 56, 57].
Many terms have been used to describe PPGP syndrome on the basis of causative hypotheses (pelvic joint arthropathy, relaxation, insufficiency, instability), presenting symptoms (pelvic pain, and/or low-back pain, pelvic joint pain) or related topography (posterior pelvic pain, osteitis pubis, symphyseal pelvic dysfunction, low-back pain) (Table 1).
All of these attempts to define the problem have been unsuccessful either because they narrowed the spectrum of this pain syndrome or because they confused its nature by blending it with the syndrome of chronic low-back lumbar pain. There is an existing consensus [58, 59] that pregnancy-related low-back pain is a distinct entity that needs to be excluded before the diagnosis of PPGP is made.
While the responsible pathophysiological mechanisms remain obscure, this clinical syndrome is best defined descriptively by its presentation and topography. With regard to its onset, it has been associated with symptoms beginning between the first trimester, at labour or even during the postpartum period. Thus, terms limiting PPGP to a certain phase pregnancy appear insufficient to cover the whole spectrum of the clinical problem. With regard to this concept, the European Guidelines  are based on the musculoskeletal type of the resulting pain (excluding gynaecological and/or urological causative pathologies) localised from the level of the posterior iliac crest and the gluteal fold over the anterior and posterior elements of the bony pelvis. In 2005, the term pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain, or PPGP, was introduced and appears to be the most accurate compared with previous definitions.
The exact mechanisms that lead to the development of PPGP remain uncertain. A variety of approaches have been proposed that suggest hormonal [61, 62, 63, 64], biomechanical [65, 66], traumatic , metabolic , genetic  and degenerative [70, 71] etiologic implications.
On the basis of all of these hypotheses, the accumulated evidence advocates in favour of a multifactorial condition during pregnancy and postpartum. The effect of the levels of relaxin and progesterone to the pelvic girdle ligaments is established ; however, no consensus of its association with the symptoms of PPGP has been reached [73, 74, 75]. This discrepancy can be attributed mostly to methodological differences , as well as to the presence of unspecified cofactors altering the clinical presentation. The biomechanical theory and its advocates  have highlighted the separation of the pubic symphysis (≥10 mm) as an important threshold. However, this was not proven to be consistent and does not apply to patients with symptoms mostly localised at the posterior pelvic girdle. Moreover, other mechanical theories [77, 78] based on body habitus and lumbar spine stance, as well as foetal size and weight, have also been proven incompatible with all the cases. The role of genetics is still largely unknown, and current knowledge is based on epidemiological indications between first-degree relatives [79, 80, 81].
Among a large number of potential factors, those of strenuous work (twisting and bending the back several times per hour), a history of low-back pain, pelvic girdle pain or previous trauma to the bony pelvis were identified [4, 5, 53, 80, 82, 83] as being strongly related to PPGP. Conversely, in the same epidemiologic observational studies, factors such as the time from previous pregnancies, smoking habits, use of contraception, epidural anaesthesia, maternal ethnicity, body mass index, number of previous pregnancies, bone density, foetal weight and age were not linked with increased risk of PPGP development.
Among all the relevant studies, the incidence of PPGP ranges from 4% to 76.4% depending on the definition used, the diagnostic means utilised (for example, patient history, pain questionnaires, clinical tests) and the design of the studies (retrospective or prospective).
As reported by Wu et al. , on average, doctors' files verify the syndrome in about 20% fewer cases than patients' reports. The apparent geographical variation of reported PPGP incidence and severity, with higher rates in Scandinavian countries [80, 84] and the Netherlands [47, 83], should be attributed to the increased awareness regarding this condition by healthcare providers and the public [76, 85]. However, the reported cases are spread among a wide variety of countries (Table 1) and across all continents, indicating that PPGP is a universal problem.
Using the definition described above and including only prospectively designed studies of large series of patients with objectively verified symptoms, the prevalence of PPGP is between 16% and 25% [4, 80, 83, 86, 87, 88]. Over the same large samples of pregnant women, the clinically persistent PPGP from the postpartum stage to 2 years after childbirth has a reported incidence of 5% to 8.5% [83, 86, 88, 89].
The PPGP diagnosis should be considered after the exclusion of painful visceral pathologies of the pelvis (urogenital, gastrointestinal), lower-back pain syndromes (lumbar disc lesion/prolapsed, radiculopathies, spondylolisthesis, rheumatism, sciatica, spinal stenosis or lumbar spine arthritis), bone or soft tissue infections (typical or atypical such as tuberculosis or syphilitic lesions of pubis), urinary tract infections, femoral vein thrombosis, obstetric complications (preterm labour, abruption, round ligament pain, chorioamnionitis), rupture of symphysis pubis, and bone or soft tissue tumours [13, 19, 37, 90, 91].
A thorough medical history, physical examination and appropriate laboratory tests should always be performed to successfully reach the diagnosis of PPGP. Obviously, a multidisciplinary approach and consultation may be needed, as this syndrome expands to a wide field of anatomically related medical specialties [4, 6, 24, 40, 60]. An algorithm of the necessary diagnostic workup is presented in Figure 1.
Presentation, classification and diagnosis
PPGP, as defined previously, has been associated with pain (stabbing, dull, shooting, burning) located at the general area of pelvic girdle, either posteriorly close to the sacroiliac joints and extending to the gluteal area or anteriorly to the vicinity of the symphysis pubis. It may radiate to the groin, perineum or posterior thigh, lacking a typical nerve root distribution. A precise localisation of the pain is often impossible and may also change during the course of the pregnancy [74, 92].
Current classification systems of PPGP are based on pain localisation [86, 92]. They include five subtypes: (1) type 1 or "pelvic girdle syndrome," comprising symptoms of anterior and posterior pelvic girdle, symphysis pubis and bilateral sacroiliac joints; (2) type 2 or "double-sided sacroiliac syndrome," comprising symptoms of the posterior pelvic girdle and bilateral sacroiliac joints; (3) type 3 or "single-sided sacroiliac syndrome," comprising symptoms of the posterior pelvic girdle and unilateral sacroiliac joint; (4) type 4 or "symphysiolysis," comprising symptoms of the anterior pelvic girdle and pubic symphysis; and (5) type 5 or "miscellaneous," comprising inconsistent findings of the pelvic girdle.
The onset of PPGP varies significantly and has been recorded at stages between the end of the first trimester to the first month postdelivery, including the labour stage [76, 78, 93, 94]. It may be insidious or sudden. In general, postpartum pain may be milder than that during pregnancy. A general consensus exists regarding a peak of symptoms closer to the third trimester between the 24th and 36th weeks of pregnancy [76, 94]. In the majority of cases (up to 93%), PPGP settles and spontaneously disappears after the sixth month postpartum. In the rest of the cases, it persists, acquiring a chronic character.
Several authors [4, 50, 83] have recommended that a careful recording of the pain history of the patient suspected of having PPGP contributes significantly to a successful diagnosis. Characteristics such as exacerbations related to a change of position from sitting to standing or during prolonged sitting or standing, during sexual intercourse, and increased intra-abdominal pressure (coughing, sneezing, micturition, defecation) should be explored. On the basis of the medical history, changes and significant difficulties in performing activities of daily living are usually apparent. History combined with the localisation of the pain, with the addition of pain referral maps , can differentiate lower-back pain syndromes, sciatica, visceral or vascular origin syndromes from PPGP.
PPGP pain intensity is repeatedly reported [83, 89, 96, 97] to be around 50 to 60 mm of the visual analogue scale (VAS), ranging significantly, however, throughout the duration of the syndrome from bearable to very serious for the 8% of severely disabled women. Wu et al.  described a higher correlation of the resultant disability to the increased "fear of movement" and less to the degree of pain itself.
Alteration of gait patterns has also been associated with the syndrome regarding the inability of these patients to cover long distances or a temporary "catching" sensation or clicking on hip flexion, located mostly anteriorly or unilaterally posteriorly. The gait coordination of these patients is distinctly characterised by slower walking velocity, an increase in the amplitude of the horizontal rotation of the pelvis to the thorax and a reduced relative phase between these rotations, which differentiate PPGP patients from those with lower-back pain and healthy pregnant women [50, 53, 98].
Tenderness to deep palpation of the suprapubic and sacroiliac area along the course of the long posterior sacroiliac and sacrotuberous ligaments, as well as a palpable step of the pubic symphysis joint, may be evident. Signs of local inflammation (erythema, oedema, warmth) may exist in a small percentage of the cases [99, 100].
A wide variety of clinical examinations have been evaluated regarding their usefulness in the assessment and differential diagnosis of PPGP. Earlier studies were more focused on deep palpation and radiologic findings, while lately the weight of diagnosis has shifted toward the cumulative results of specific pain provocation tests [4, 6, 101, 102, 103, 104]. For the posterior elements of the pelvic girdle and the sacroiliac joints, the most reliable examinations are the posterior pelvic pain provocation test (P4/thigh thrust), the Patrick's FABER (flexion, abduction, external rotation at the hip), the active straight leg raise (ASLR), the long dorsal ligament and the Gaenslen tests [4, 6, 101, 102, 103, 104]. With regard to the pubic symphysis, the diagnosis is based mostly on deep palpation and the modified Trendelenburg test [25, 84, 105].
Because most of these tests have a proven high specificity but lower sensitivity, there appears to be a consensus for the combined use of all of these tests to minimise false-negative results. Leadbetter et al.  described a scoring system to guide clinicians in screening the general pregnant patient population. In that system, they included five essential symptoms: pain of the pubic symphysis on walking, while standing on one leg, while climbing stairs, or while turning over in bed, as well as a history of damage to the pelvis or the lumbosacral area.
Laboratory blood tests are usually normal, with a nonspecific mild elevation of the acute phase reactants (C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate) in a number of cases. However, for reasons related to differential diagnosis, most authors report acquiring a complete blood count, biochemistry and urine analysis [75, 106, 107].
Radiological investigations have a more essential role in the evaluation of the PPGP syndrome. Standard anteroposterior, inlet and outlet pelvic films are used to measure the degree of symphyseal separation and to identify cortical sclerosis, spurring or rarefaction. The use of single-limb stance anteroposterior or flamingo views delineates more subtle cases of pubic symphysis separation and appears useful in quantifying the degree of pelvic girdle instability . The detection of a step-off of more than 2 or 7 mm at the standard anteroposterior or flamingo views, respectively, is considered by some authors as a threshold of pelvic instability . However, no direct association of the extent of the separation or of the radiologic irregularities to the severity of PPGP was identified in a number of studies [15, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114]. Computed tomography (CT) scanning has also been performed by some authors, mainly for differential diagnosis [115, 116, 117]. However, according to the recent recommendations of the European PPGP research group , conventional radiography, CT scans and scintigraphy are inadequately supported for their use in rendering a PPGP diagnosis.
These imaging techniques are usually limited to postpartum females because of the hazard of exposing the foetus to ionising radiation. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan is suggested during pregnancy, offering additional advantages of increased resolution and its superiority in allowing visualisation of soft tissue and marrow reactions [24, 118, 119, 120]. In addition, according the European guidelines, the MRI scan is recommended for the differential diagnosis of PPGP in all its stages .
Transvaginal/transperineal ultrasonography has also been advocated for the diagnosis and monitoring of the progress of pubic symphysis PPGP, with the limitation of being a user-dependent examination [42, 111, 113, 121, 122].
Last, guided local anaesthetic injections to the sacroiliac or pubic symphysis joint and the resulting pain relief during previous positive provocation tests offer significant diagnostic specificity, reaching 100%, but reflect only intra-articular pathologies. PPGP related to extra-articular pathologies may be unaffected (that is, strain of the superficial long sacroiliac joint ligament) [103, 123].
Because of the large heterogeneity of the published studies and the inconsistent quality of the reviewed articles (ranging from large, randomised, controlled trials to uncontrolled case series and case reports), no strong comparative evidence regarding the utilised methods of treatment is possible. Management of the PPGP syndrome as reported during the past few decades involves a variety of clinicians and specialities, as well as a combined interdisciplinary approach.
Regarding the cases that remain symptomatic postdelivery, it has been shown that treatment based on specific stabilising exercises offers significant advantages over pain management, functional recovery and generalised health-related quality of life and physical status [133, 134]. Individually tailored, supervised physical therapy is reported to be more effective than general back and/or pelvic pain therapies [46, 58, 104].
Pain relief drug therapies have been evaluated extensively in the literature. The reported consensus is that paracetamol, although safe for use in the pregnant population, is considered inadequate on its own for the PPGP levels of pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have a better pain relief effect but are linked to foetal malformations or pregnancy complications . Luckily, the severity of PPGP symptoms also peaks at the end stages of pregnancy, allowing for NSAID use then or mostly postpartum. Opioids are strictly restricted in the prepartum cases, as well as among lactating females . In a few small series [23, 136, 137], the use of epidural analgesia has been reported with good results, delivered either in a single shot or in extended administration during periods of pain exacerbation. In all cases, it should be considered as a temporary method of pain relief until delivery.
The use of guided injections of local anaesthetics with corticosteroids was tested therapeutically in cases of evident arthritis of the pelvic joints [138, 139]. In several studies [16, 140, 141, 142], they were used preoperatively to justify surgery for fusion of the painful pelvic joint or triple fusion of all pelvic articulations. The methods of guidance vary between fluoroscopy, CT and MRI scans, offering targeted administration of chemicals to the degenerative joints without specific evidence of the advantages of one chemical over the others.
A limited number of studies have evaluated the efficacy of antenatal back care education and supplemental therapies such as massage , local application of heat and/or cold , modified back school classes [96, 144], special pillows , sacroiliac joint manipulation and mobilisation , pelvic belts [110, 147], radiofrequency denervation of the pain receptors of the sacroiliac joints  and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [92, 149], with inconclusive or unconvincing results. A generalised recommendation in the experimental use of some of these methods (cushions and pillows, early patient education and general fitness exercise programs, walking aids and/or wheelchairs) was recently suggested  on the basis of the potential beneficial psychophysiological effect at least to a subgroup of the PPGP population and the apparent safety of these noninvasive approaches.
The labour of a pregnant woman with established PPGP syndrome appears to be the phase less investigated with regard to its relationship to the persistence of the symptoms postdelivery. However, there appears to be a consensus regarding minimal stress on the pelvic girdle, avoidance of abduction of the hips over the prespinal/epidural anaesthesia comfort arc of the particular patient and minimisation of the duration of the lithotomy position ("all-four" position or lateral positions should be used instead) [150, 151, 152]. Caesarean section does not appear to offer any particular advantages to women with established PPGP syndrome, except for those at the worst extreme, whereas the mere positioning for vaginal delivery is impossible [31, 92, 151]. Early induction of labour or elective caesarean section is advocated by a few of the authors [85, 153] in the most severe cases, but these options are still supported by limited evidence.
Pelvic fusion surgery has been evaluated in a number of case series studies [16, 140, 141, 142] and in general represents an end-stage procedure following the failure of nonoperative means and the persistence of debilitating symptoms. A number of authors [154, 155] have advocated in favour of a staged approach, with the application of an external fixator as a temporary stabilisation device serving as an indicator of the potential relief of symptoms if mechanical instability is the main causative factor. Most of these cohort studies represent the experience of tertiary referral centres and report on fusion surgery of one or all three of the pelvic girdle joints (Figure 2). According to the European guidelines , the surgical option should be offered as part of a comprehensive management protocol and mostly as an end-stage alternative used by specialist surgeons.
The reported outcomes for patients with PPGP appear to be universally good in the vast majority of prepartum cases. The syndrome is described mostly as a self-limiting condition in which symptoms settle in 93% of the patients within the first 3 months postdelivery. By the first year postdelivery, only 1% to 2% of patients report the persistence of pain. These cases are mostly those patients who had very intense symptoms during the pregnancy period. As reported by Albert et al. , 79% of those with severe PPGP symptoms are asymptomatic 2 years postdelivery.
Among several related studies [7, 8, 21, 30, 41, 87, 88, 156, 157], certain risk factors for a worse prognosis have been identified. They are based on the patient's history and demographic, psychosocial and socioeconomic characteristics as well as the intensity of PPGP symptoms. A high number of simultaneously positive provocation diagnostic tests, a lower index of mobility, lack of education and/or unskilled work history, multiparity, prolonged duration of labour, age >29 years, higher pain intensity (VAS score >6), onset of pain at early gestation, combined lumbar and pelvic pain in pregnancy and localisation of pain in more than one of the pelvic joints are all included among these adverse prognostic factors. A positive ASLR test and belief in improvements have both been regarded as important independent factors by Vollestad and Stuge in their recent publication .
Recurrence of PPGP is commonly reported (41% to 77%), either with a subsequent pregnancy or related to the menstrual cycle [76, 77, 80]. The exact incidence of recurrence, as well as its related risk factors or the role of preventive measures, is unknown. In the majority of the recorded pregnancy relapses of PPGP, the syndrome reappears in a more severe form [84, 85].
Contemporary clinical awareness of the PPGP syndrome appears to be increasing because of increased public awareness and the interaction of scientists from different medical specialties. Recently introduced definitions and proposed guidelines on PPGP diagnosis and management represent significant improvements, setting the basis for future comprehensive research on this multifactorial pain syndrome. Different treatment modalities and disease-specific outcome measures need to be investigated in multicentre, randomised clinical trials following the previous initiative of the Research Directorate of the European Commission .
- 1.Beer E: Periosteitis of symphysis and descending rami of pubes. Int J Med Surg. 1924, 37: 224-225.Google Scholar
- 2.Snelling FG: Relaxation of pelvic symphyses during pregnancy and parturition. Am J Obstet. 1870, 2: 561-596.Google Scholar
- 3.Legueue MB, Rochet WL: Les cellulites perivesicales et pelviennes apres certaines cystostomies ou prostatectomies sus-pubiennes. J Urol Med Chir. 1923, 15: 1.Google Scholar
- 7.Bastiaenen CH, de Bie RA, Wolters PM, Vlaeyen JW, Leffers P, Stelma F, Bastiaanssen JM, Essed GG, van den Brandt PA: Effectiveness of a tailor-made intervention for pregnancy-related pelvic girdle and/or low back pain after delivery: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial [ISRCTN08477490]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006, 7: 19-10.1186/1471-2474-7-19.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Buchner M, Neubauer E, Zahlten-Hinguranage A, Schiltenwolf M: Age as a predicting factor in the therapy outcome of multidisciplinary treatment of patients with chronic low back pain: a prospective longitudinal clinical study in 405 patients. Clin Rheumatol. 2007, 26: 385-392. 10.1007/s10067-006-0368-1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Elden H, Fagevik-Olsen M, Östgaard HC, Stener-Victorin E, Hagberg H: Acupuncture as an adjunct to standard treatment for pelvic girdle pain in pregnant women: randomised double-blinded controlled trial comparing acupuncture with non-penetrating sham acupuncture. BJOG. 2008, 115: 1655-1668. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01904.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Elden H, Östgaard HC, Fagevik-Olsen M, Ladfors L, Hagberg H: Treatments of pelvic girdle pain in pregnant women: adverse effects of standard treatment, acupuncture and stabilising exercises on the pregnancy, mother, delivery and the fetus/neonate. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008, 8: 34-10.1186/1472-6882-8-34.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 18.Gutke A, Josefsson A, Oberg B: Pelvic girdle pain and lumbar pain in relation to postpartum depressive symptoms. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007, 32: 1430-1436.Google Scholar
- 20.Gutke A, Östgaard HC, Oberg B: Pelvic girdle pain and lumbar pain in pregnancy: a cohort study of the consequences in terms of health and functioning. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006, 31: E149-E155.Google Scholar
- 21.Gutke A, Östgaard HC, Oberg B: Predicting persistent pregnancy-related low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008, 33: E386-E393.Google Scholar
- 27.Mens JM, Damen L, Snijders CJ, Stam HJ: The mechanical effect of a pelvic belt in patients with pregnancy-related pelvic pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006, 21: 122-127. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.08.016.Google Scholar
- 34.Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Vleeming A: Pregnancy related pelvic girdle pain and low back pain in an Iranian population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007, 32: E100-E104.Google Scholar
- 40.Ronchetti I, Vleeming A, van Wingerden JP: Physical characteristics of women with severe pelvic girdle pain after pregnancy: a descriptive cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008, 33: E145-E151.Google Scholar
- 43.Sjodahl J, Kvist J, Gutke A, Oberg B: The postural response of the pelvic floor muscles during limb movements: a methodological electromyography study in parous women without lumbopelvic pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009, 24: 183-189. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.11.004.Google Scholar
- 50.Van Wingerden JP, Vleeming A, Ronchetti I: Differences in standing and forward bending in women with chronic low back or pelvic girdle pain: indications for physical compensation strategies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008, 33: E334-E341.Google Scholar
- 54.Pelvic Girdle Pain and problems at work. [http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/pregnancy/185898-pelvic-girdle-pain-and-problems-at-work]
- 55.Pelvic Instability Network Support (PINS): providing information, ideas and online support. [http://www.pelvicgirdlepain.com/]
- 56.Pelvic Instability Network Scotland. [http://www.pelvicinstability.org.uk/healthprofessionals.asp]
- 57.The International Pelvic Pain Society (IPPS). [http://www.pelvicpain.org/]
- 58.Noren L, Ostgaard S, Nielsen TF, Östgaard HC: Reduction of sick leave for lumbar back and posterior pelvic pain in pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997, 22: 2157-2160.Google Scholar
- 60.Vleeming A, Albert HB, Östgaard HC, Stuge B, Sturesson B: Working Group 4: pelvic girdle pain. European Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pelvic Girdle Pain. 2005, European Commission, Research Directorate-General, Department of Policy, Coordination and StrategyGoogle Scholar
- 77.Mens JM, Vleeming A, Stoeckart R, Stam HJ, Snijders CJ: Understanding peripartum pelvic pain. Implications of a patient survey. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996, 21: 1363-1370.Google Scholar
- 78.Östgaard HC, Andersson GB, Schultz AB, Miller JA: Influence of some biomechanical factors on low-back pain in pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993, 18: 61-65.Google Scholar
- 79.Mogren IM, Pohjanen AI: Low back pain and pelvic pain during pregnancy: prevalence and risk factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005, 30: 983-991.Google Scholar
- 84.MacLennan AH, MacLennan SC: Symptom-giving pelvic girdle relaxation of pregnancy, postnatal pelvic joint syndrome and developmental dysplasia of the hip. The Norwegian Association for Women with Pelvic Girdle Relaxation (Landforeningen for Kvinner Med Bekkenløsningsplager). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997, 76: 760-764. 10.3109/00016349709024343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 86.Albert HB, Godskesen M, Westergaard JG: Incidence of four syndromes of pregnancy-related pelvic joint pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002, 27: 2831-2834.Google Scholar
- 87.Östgaard HC, Roos-Hansson E, Zetherstrom G: Regression of back and posterior pelvic pain after pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996, 21: 2777-2780.Google Scholar
- 95.Sturesson B, Uden G, Uden A: Pain pattern in pregnancy and "catching" of the leg in pregnant women with posterior pelvic pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997, 22: 1880-1884.Google Scholar
- 96.Östgaard HC, Zetherstrom G, Roos-Hansson E, Svanberg B: Reduction of back and posterior pelvic pain in pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994, 19: 894-900.Google Scholar
- 97.Kristiansson P, Svardsudd K, von Schoultz B: Back pain during pregnancy: a prospective study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996, 21: 702-709.Google Scholar
- 98.Wu W, Meijer OG, Lamoth CJ, Uegaki K, van Dieen JH, Wuisman PI, de Vries JI, Beek PJ: Gait coordination in pregnancy: transverse pelvic and thoracic rotations and their relative phase. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004, 19: 480-488. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.02.003.Google Scholar
- 101.Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Ronchetti I, Stam HJ: Reliability and validity of hip adduction strength to measure disease severity in posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002, 27: 1674-1679.Google Scholar
- 102.Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Koes BW, Stam HJ: Validity of the active straight leg raise test for measuring disease severity in patients with posterior pelvic pain after pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002, 27: 196-200.Google Scholar
- 108.Chamberlain WE: The symphysis pubis in the roentgen examination of the sacroiliac joint. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther. 1930, 24: 621-625.Google Scholar
- 117.Vleeming A, Stoeckart R, Volkers AC, Snijders CJ: Relation between form and function in the sacroiliac joint. Part I: Clinical anatomical aspects. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990, 15: 130-132.Google Scholar
- 123.Dreyfuss P, Michaelsen M, Pauza K, McLarty J, Bogduk N: The value of medical history and physical examination in diagnosing sacroiliac joint pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996, 21: 2594-2602.Google Scholar
- 125.Pennick VE, Young G: Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, CD001139-2Google Scholar
- 127.Nilsson-Wikmar L, Holm K, Oijerstedt R, Harms-Ringdahl K: Effect of three different physical therapy treatments on pain and activity in pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain: a randomized clinical trial with 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up postpartum. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005, 30: 850-856.Google Scholar
- 133.Stuge B, Laerum E, Kirkesola G, Vollestad N: The efficacy of a treatment program focusing on specific stabilizing exercises for pelvic girdle pain after pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004, 29: 351-359.Google Scholar
- 138.Luukkainen RK, Wennerstrand PV, Kautiainen HH, Sanila MT, Asikainen EL: Efficacy of periarticular corticosteroid treatment of the sacroiliac joint in non-spondylarthropathic patients with chronic low back pain in the region of the sacroiliac joint. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2002, 20: 52-54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 142.Van Zwienen CM, van den Bosch EW, Snijders CJ, van Vugt AB: Triple pelvic ring fixation in patients with severe pregnancy-related low back and pelvic pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004, 29: 478-484.Google Scholar
- 149.Coldron Y, Crothers E, Haslam J, Notcutt W, Sidney D, Thomas R, Watson T: ACPWH guidance on the safe use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for musculosketal pain during pregnancy. [http://www.oaa-anaes.ac.uk/assets/_managed/editor/File/PDF/info_for_mothers/TENS%20Statement%20JUNE%2007%20ACPWH%20Final.pdf]
- 151.Guidance for Health Professionals: Pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain; formerly known as Symphysis Pubis Dysfunction (SPD). [http://www.acpwh.org.uk/docs/ACPWH-PGP_HP.pdf]
- 157.Grotle M, Brox JI, Veierod MB, Glomsrod B, Lonn JH, Vollestad NK: Clinical course and prognostic factors in acute low back pain: patients consulting primary care for the first time. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005, 30: 976-982.Google Scholar
- 167.Genell S: Studies on insufficientia pelvis (gravidarum et puerperarum). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1949, 28: 1-37. 10.3109/00016344809154876.Google Scholar
- 169.Wormslev M, Juul AM, Marques B, Minck H, Bentzen L, Hansen TM: Clinical examination of pelvic insufficiency during pregnancy: an evaluation of the interobserver variation, the relation between clinical signs and pain and the relation between clinical signs and physical disability. Scand J Rheumatol. 1994, 23: 96-102. 10.3109/03009749409103036.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 177.Abramson D, Roberts SM, Wilson PD: Relaxation of the pelvic joints in pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1934, 58: 595-613.Google Scholar
- 187.Lindsel H, Irgens S: [Pelvic instability: important that maternity centers are informed and know about women's condition] (in Danish). Sygeplejersken. 1984, 84: 4-7. 14Google Scholar
- 189.Lindsel H, Irgens S: [Pelvic instability. It is all about relief and avoiding pain] (in Danish). Sygeplejersken. 1984, 84: 4-8.Google Scholar
- 198.Bastiaenen CH, de Bie RA, Wolters PM, Vlaeyen JW, Bastiaanssen JM, Klabbers AB, Heuts A, van den Brandt PA, Essed GG: Treatment of pregnancy-related pelvic girdle and/or low back pain after delivery design of a randomized clinical trial within a comprehensive prognostic cohort study [ISRCTN08477490]. BMC Public Health. 2004, 4: 67-10.1186/1471-2458-4-67.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 200.Stuge B, Veierod MB, Laerum E, Vollestad N: The efficacy of a treatment program focusing on specific stabilizing exercises for pelvic girdle pain after pregnancy: a two-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004, 29: E197-E203.Google Scholar
- 201.Elden H, Ladfors L, Olsen MF, Östgaard HC, Hagberg H: Effects of acupuncture and stabilising exercises as adjunct to standard treatment in pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain: randomised single blind controlled trial. BMJ. 2005, 330: 761-10.1136/bmj.38397.507014.E0.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 216.Damen L, Buyruk HM, Guler-Uysal F, Lotgering FK, Snijders CJ, Stam HJ: The prognostic value of asymmetric laxity of the sacroiliac joints in pregnancy-related pelvic pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002, 27: 2820-2824.Google Scholar
- 218.Wu W, Meijer OG, Jutte PC, Uegaki K, Lamoth CJ, Sander de Wolf G, van Dieën JH, Wuisman PI, Kwakkel G, de Vries JI, Beek PJ: Gait in patients with pregnancy-related pain in the pelvis: an emphasis on the coordination of transverse pelvic and thoracic rotations. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002, 17: 678-686. 10.1016/S0268-0033(02)00109-2.Google Scholar
- 221.Rost CC, Jacqueline J, Kaiser A, Verhagen AP, Koes BW: Pelvic pain during pregnancy: a descriptive study of signs and symptoms of 870 patients in primary care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004, 29: 2567-2572.Google Scholar
- 223.Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Koes BW, Stam HJ: Reliability and validity of the active straight leg raise test in posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001, 26: 1167-1171.Google Scholar
- 224.Mens JM, Vleeming A, Snijders CJ, Ronchetti I, Ginai AZ, Stam HJ: Responsiveness of outcome measurements in rehabilitation of patients with posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002, 27: 1110-1115.Google Scholar
- 233.Young G, Jewell D: Interventions for preventing and treating pelvic and back pain in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002, CD001139-1Google Scholar
- 234.Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Slieker ten Hove MC, Vierhout ME, Mulder PH, Pool JJ, Snijders CJ, Stoeckart R: Relations between pregnancy-related low back pain, pelvic floor activity and pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005, 16: 468-474. 10.1007/s00192-005-1292-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/15/prepub
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.