Comparison between measurements obtained with three different perineometers

• Autor(a) principal: Barbosa, Patrícia Brentegani
• Data de Publicação: 2009
• Outros Autores: Franco, Maíra Menezes, Souza, Flaviane de Oliveira, Antônio, Flávia Ignácio, Montezuma, Thaís, Ferreira, Cristine Homsi Jorge
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Clinics
• Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/18051
• topic: Physiotherapy; Pelvic floor; Evaluation; Reliability; Woman

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results obtained in the evaluation of intra-vaginal pressure using three different brands of perineometers in nulliparous volunteers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty nulliparous women with no anatomical alterations and/or dysfunction of the pelvic floor were enrolled in our study. All the women had the ability to voluntarily contract their PFM (Pelvic Floor Muscles), as assessed by digital palpation. The intra-vaginal pressure was assessed using three different brands of perineometer (Neurodyn EvolutionTM, SensuPowerTM and PeritronTM). Each volunteer was evaluated on three alternate days by a single examiner using a single brand of perineometer on each day. In the assessment, the volunteers were required to pull (contract) their PFM in and up as strongly as possible 3 times and to sustain the contraction for 5 seconds, with an interval of 30 seconds between each pull. For the statistical analysis, a concordance correlation coefficient was used to compare the values that were obtained with each brand of perineometer. RESULTS: A moderate concordance (0.51) was found between the results from the PeritronTM and NeurodynTM perineometers, a fair concordance (0.21) between the PeritronTM and SensuPowerTM brands and a poor concordance (0.19) between the NeurodynTM and SensuPowerTM brands. CONCLUSION: The concordance of the measurements of the intra-vaginal pressure ranged from poor to moderate, suggesting that perineometers of different brands generate different results.