论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨不同强度电刺激联合生物反馈盆底肌训练对阴道分娩患者产后盆底功能障碍性疾病（PFD）的疗效。方法:选取上海市第六人民医院金山分院2017年1月至2019年4月阴道分娩后PFD患者720例，按随机数字表法分为对照组（358例）和观察组（362例），对照组采用常规电刺激联合生物反馈盆底肌训练治疗，观察组采用增强电刺激强度联合生物反馈盆底肌训练治疗。比较两组患者治疗后盆底功能电生理指标、压力性尿失禁（SUI）发生率、盆腔脏器脱垂/尿失禁性功能问卷（PISQ-12）评分、盆腔器官脱垂定量（POP-Q）分期法的6个测量点值，6个测量点为阴道前壁中线距处女膜缘3 cm处（Aa点）、阴道顶端或前穹隆到Aa点之间阴道前壁上段中的最远点（Ba点）、阴道后壁中线距处女膜缘3 cm处（Ap点）、阴道后穹隆或阴道顶端至Ap点的阴道后壁上段的最远点（Bp点）、宫颈或子宫切除后阴道顶端所处的最远端（C点）和有宫颈时的后穹隆的位置（D点）。结果:观察组Ⅰ类肌纤维疲劳度、Ⅱ类肌纤维疲劳度、前静息平均肌电值、慢肌平均肌电值、后静息平均肌电值、快肌最大肌电值和阴道动态压力均明显优于对照组[（- 2.51 ± 0.22）%比（- 3.29 ± 0.37）%、（- 2.89 ± 0.27）%比（- 3.18 ± 0.32）%、（3.41 ± 0.39）μV比（2.91 ± 0.28）μV、（30.12 ± 0.22）μV比（28.29 ± 0.37）μV、（3.14 ± 0.55）μV比（2.51 ± 0.30）μV、（39.89 ± 0.27）μV比（38.18 ± 0.32）μV和（76.92 ± 28.18）cmHn 2O（1 cmHn 2O=0.098 kPa）比（69.10 ± 30.66）cmHn 2O]，差异有统计学意义（n P<0.01）。观察组SUI发生率和PISQ-12评分均明显低于对照组[14.36%（52/362）比27.09%（97/358）和（28.49 ± 3.61）分比（37.62 ± 3.83）分]，差异有统计学意义（n P<0.01）。观察组Aa、Ba、Ap和C点较对照组明显改善[（- 2.69 ± 0.21）cm比（- 2.38 ± 0.13）cm、（- 2.30 ± 0.52）cm比（- 2.21 ± 0.33）cm、（- 2.91 ± 0.35）cm比（- 2.85 ± 0.24）cm和（- 5.33 ± 065）cm比（- 5.20 ± 056）cm]，差异有统计学意义（n t=2.365、2.469、2.691和2.889，n P0.05）。n 结论:阴道分娩后PFD患者采用较强强度电刺激联合生物反馈盆底肌训练能明显改善患者盆底电生理指标、POP-Q指标，降低SUI发生率，提高性生活质量。“,”Objective:To explore the effect of different intensity electrical stimulation combined with biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training on postpartum pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) in vaginal delivery patients.Methods:Seven hundred and twenty patients with PFD after vaginal delivery from January 2017 to April 2019 in Jinshan Branch of Shanghai Sixth People′s Hospital were selected. The patients were divided into control group (358 cases) and observation group (362 cases) by random digits table method. The control group was treated with conventional electric stimulation combined with biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training, and the observation group was treated with enhanced electric stimulation combined with biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training. The electrophysiological indexes of pelvic floor, incidence of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score and the 6 measurement points of quantitative stage of pelvic organ prolapse (POP-Q) staging method after treatment were compared between 2 groups. The 6 measuring points were 3 cm from central line of anterior wall of vagina to edge of the hymen (Aa point), furthest point in the upper part of anterior wall of vagina between top of vagina or anterior vault to Aa point (Ba point), 3 cm point from central line of vaginal posterior wall to hymen (Ap point), farthest point of posterior vaginal vault or upper part of posterior vaginal wall from top of vagina to Ap point (Bp point), farthest point of the top of vagina after cervix or hysterectomy (C point) and position of posterior fornix in presence of cervix (D point).Results:The fatigue degree of class Ⅰ muscle fibers, fatigue degree of class Ⅱ muscle fibers, average electromyography value of pre rest, average electromyography value of slow muscle, average electromyography value of post rest, maximum electromyography value of fast muscle and dynamic vaginal pressure in observation group were significantly better than those in control group: (- 2.51 ± 0.22)% vs. (- 3.29 ± 0.37)%, (- 2.89 ± 0.27)% vs. (- 3.18 ± 0.32)%, (3.41 ± 0.39) μV vs. (2.91 ± 0.28) μV, (30.12 ± 0.22) μV vs. (28.29 ± 0.37) μV, (3.14 ± 0.55) μV vs. (2.51 ± 0.30) μV, (39.89 ± 0.27) μV vs. (38.18 ± 0.32) μV and (76.92 ± 28.18) cmH n 2O(1 cmHn 2O=0.098 kPa) vs. (69.10 ± 30.66) cmHn 2O, and there were statistical differences (n P<0.01). The incidence of SUI and PISQ-12 score in observation group were significantly lower than those in control group: 14.36% (52/362) vs. 27.09% (97/358) and (28.49 ± 3.61) scores vs. (37.62 ± 3.83) scores, and there were statistical differences (n P<0.01). The Aa, Ba, Ap and C points in observation group were significantly improved than those in control group: (- 2.69 ± 0.21) cm vs. (- 2.38 ± 0.13) cm, (- 2.30 ± 0.52) cm vs. (- 2.21 ± 0.33) cm, (- 2.91 ± 0.35) cm vs. (- 2.85 ± 0.24) cm and (- 5.33 ± 065) cm vs. (- 5.20 ± 056) cm, and there were statistical differences (n t=2.365, 2.469, 2.691 and 2.889; n P0.05).n Conclusions:After vaginal delivery, the patients with PFD who use strong electric stimulation combined with biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training can significantly improve the pelvic floor electrophysiological index and POP-Q staging, reduce the incidence of SUI, and improve the quality of sexual life.