Exploring pelvic floor muscle function in men with and without pelvic floor symptoms: A population-based study.
digital assessment
heatmap
male pelvic floor musculature
male pelvic floor symptoms
Journal
Neurourology and urodynamics
ISSN: 1520-6777
Titre abrégé: Neurourol Urodyn
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8303326
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2022
Nov 2022
Historique:
revised:
17
03
2022
received:
13
01
2022
accepted:
01
06
2022
pubmed:
26
7
2022
medline:
2
11
2022
entrez:
25
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Pelvic floor symptoms (PFS), such as lower urinary tract symptoms, defecation disorders, sexual problems, and genital-pelvic pain, are prevalent in men. Thorough physical assessments of the external anal sphincter (EAS) and the puborectal muscle (PRM) are the keys to unraveling the role of muscle dysfunction. To explore associations within and between the EAS and PRM and between muscle (dys-) function and the number of male PFS. This cross-sectional study purposively enrolled men aged ≥21 years with 0-4 symptoms from a larger study. After extensive external and internal digital pelvic floor assessment, we explored (1) agreement between muscle function of the EAS versus PRM (using cross tabulation), (2) associations within and between the EAS and PRM (using heatmaps), and (3) associations between muscle function and number of PFS (using a visual presentation [heatmaps] and χ Overall, 42 out of 199 men (21%) had completely normal muscle function. Sixty-six (33.2%) had no symptoms, of which 53 (80%) had some degree of muscle dysfunction. No clear dose-response relationship existed between muscle (dys-) function and the number of symptoms. The PRM showed both more dysfunction and severer dysfunction than the EAS. No clear association exists between muscle dysfunction and the number of symptoms, and the absence of PFS does not indicate normal muscle function for all men. Dysfunction levels are highest for the PRM. Further pelvic floor muscle research is warranted in men with PFS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Pelvic floor symptoms (PFS), such as lower urinary tract symptoms, defecation disorders, sexual problems, and genital-pelvic pain, are prevalent in men. Thorough physical assessments of the external anal sphincter (EAS) and the puborectal muscle (PRM) are the keys to unraveling the role of muscle dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES
To explore associations within and between the EAS and PRM and between muscle (dys-) function and the number of male PFS.
METHODS
This cross-sectional study purposively enrolled men aged ≥21 years with 0-4 symptoms from a larger study. After extensive external and internal digital pelvic floor assessment, we explored (1) agreement between muscle function of the EAS versus PRM (using cross tabulation), (2) associations within and between the EAS and PRM (using heatmaps), and (3) associations between muscle function and number of PFS (using a visual presentation [heatmaps] and χ
RESULTS
Overall, 42 out of 199 men (21%) had completely normal muscle function. Sixty-six (33.2%) had no symptoms, of which 53 (80%) had some degree of muscle dysfunction. No clear dose-response relationship existed between muscle (dys-) function and the number of symptoms. The PRM showed both more dysfunction and severer dysfunction than the EAS.
CONCLUSIONS
No clear association exists between muscle dysfunction and the number of symptoms, and the absence of PFS does not indicate normal muscle function for all men. Dysfunction levels are highest for the PRM. Further pelvic floor muscle research is warranted in men with PFS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35876473
doi: 10.1002/nau.24996
pmc: PMC9795878
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03558802']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1739-1748Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Neurourology and Urodynamics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2006 Jul;18(7):507-19
pubmed: 16771766
Sex Med Rev. 2016 Jan;4(1):53-62
pubmed: 27872005
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;23(4):463-75
pubmed: 19647683
Methods Protoc. 2019 Oct 11;2(4):
pubmed: 31614567
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jun - Jul;53(7):790-796
pubmed: 29703095
Neurourol Urodyn. 2022 Nov;41(8):1739-1748
pubmed: 35876473
Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Jan;30(1):107-114
pubmed: 30008079
Indian J Urol. 2016 Jan-Mar;32(1):34-9
pubmed: 26941492
Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2019 Sep;11(4):189-194
pubmed: 30945458
Neurourol Urodyn. 2021 Feb;40(2):680-687
pubmed: 33476075
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2009 Sep;36(3):699-705
pubmed: 19932422
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016 Mar 31;88(1):28-37
pubmed: 27072173
Radiographics. 2019 Nov-Dec;39(7):2003-2022
pubmed: 31697623
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;200(2):184.e1-7
pubmed: 19110218
Physiother Theory Pract. 2018 Jun;34(6):420-432
pubmed: 29278967
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019 Mar/Apr;25(2):154-156
pubmed: 30807419
Neurourol Urodyn. 2006;25(1):46-9
pubmed: 16167354
Urol Oncol. 2020 May;38(5):354-371
pubmed: 31882228
Radiology. 2000 Nov;217(2):395-401
pubmed: 11058634
Neurourol Urodyn. 2019 Feb;38(2):433-477
pubmed: 30681183
Neurourol Urodyn. 2021 Jun;40(5):1217-1260
pubmed: 33844342
Child Abuse Negl. 2019 Oct;96:104097
pubmed: 31437771
J Sex Med. 2008 Apr;5(4):864-871
pubmed: 18221287
Auton Neurosci. 2021 Nov;235:102868
pubmed: 34391125