切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华医学超声杂志（电子版）

中华医学超声杂志（电子版） ›› 2017, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (06) : 452 -457. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2017.06.011

所属专题： 文献； 妇产科超声；

妇产科超声影像学

盆底超声检查评估不同分娩方式对产后妇女耻骨直肠肌收缩功能的影响
陈华1, 王慧芳1,†(), 王瑾1, 陈梦华1, 郭娟1, 邓晓双1   
  1. 1. 518035　深圳市第二人民医院　深圳大学第一附属医院超声科
  • 收稿日期:2017-04-06 出版日期:2017-06-01
  • 通信作者: 王慧芳
  • 基金资助:
    深圳市卫生计生系统科研项目(201607022，201601027)

Assessment of the influencesof different delivery methods of contractibility of the puborectalis in postpartum women by pelvic ultrasound

Hua Chen1, Huifang Wang1,†(), Jin Wang1, Menghua Chen1, Juan Guo1, Xiaoshuang Deng1   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasonography, the Second People′s Hospital of Shenzhen, the First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518035, China
  • Received:2017-04-06 Published:2017-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Huifang Wang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Wang Huifang, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

陈华, 王慧芳, 王瑾, 陈梦华, 郭娟, 邓晓双. 盆底超声检查评估不同分娩方式对产后妇女耻骨直肠肌收缩功能的影响[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2017, 14(06): 452-457.

Hua Chen, Huifang Wang, Jin Wang, Menghua Chen, Juan Guo, Xiaoshuang Deng. Assessment of the influencesof different delivery methods of contractibility of the puborectalis in postpartum women by pelvic ultrasound[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2017, 14(06): 452-457.

目的

采用盆底超声检查评估不同分娩方式以及产后不同时间段盆底耻骨直肠肌（PR）收缩功能的恢复情况，探讨分娩方式对PR收缩功能的影响。

方法

选取2016年9~12月于深圳大学第一附属医院超声科检查且能有效完成盆底收缩动作的初产妇168名。100名产妇经阴道分娩，其中32名为产后42~60 d，45名为产后61~90 d，23名为产后>90 d；68名产妇为剖宫产，24名为产后42~60 d，23名为产后61~90 d，21名为产后>90 d。所有受检者均接受静息和收缩状态时经会阴二维超声检查：测量前、中及后份PR厚度并计算PR增厚率。采用独立样本t检验比较经阴道分娩组与剖宫产组产后42~60 d、产后61~90 d、产后>90 d产妇双侧PR增厚率差异。

结果

经阴道分娩组产后42~60 d产妇右侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（35.57±19.80）%、（31.46±20.96）%、（24.18±21.51）%，左侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（25.23±14.36）%、（21.25±13.79）%、（20.60±11.58）%；剖宫产组产后42~60 d产妇右侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（30.27±19.22）%、（29.50±17.21）%、（28.25±14.92）%，左侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（33.02±20.65）%、（30.56±20.11）%、（28.64±14.84）%。经阴道分娩组产后61~90 d产妇右侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（29.62±16.93）%、（24.94±14.56）%、（19.26±11.12）%，左侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（20.17±15.70）%、（19.95±13.07）%、（22.19±14.50）%，剖宫产组产后61~90 d产妇右侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（30.82±15.65）%、（17.70±10.34）%、（19.30±7.02）%，左侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（18.33±11.61）%、（16.46±10.51）%、（16.62±11.69）%。经阴道分娩组产后>90 d产妇右侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（33.56±19.79）%、（25.18±11.80）%、（17.44±11.41）%，左侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（28.06±10.93）%、（22.25±11.82）%、（22.15±12.69）%，剖宫产组产后>90 d产妇右侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（46.36±20.65）%、（17.00±10.34）%、（10.86±3.40）%，左侧PR前部、中部、后部增厚率分别为（22.54±13.81）%、（13.90±10.51）%、（18.24±11.17）%。经阴道分娩组与剖宫产组产后42~60 d、产后61~90 d、产后>90 d产妇双侧各段PR增厚率差异均无统计学意义（产后42~60 d：右侧，t=0.87、P=0.34，t=0.32、P=0.75，t=0.68、P=0.50；左侧，t=1.48、P=0.15，t=1.82、P=0.08，t=1.36、P=0.12；产后61~90 d：右侧，t=0.22、P=0.83，t=1.64、P=0.11，t=0.01、P=0.99；左侧，t=0.43、P=0.67，t=0.79、P=0.44，t=1.13、P=0.27；产后>90 d：右侧，t=0.73、P=0.48，t=1.22、P=0.23，t=0.868、P=0.40；左侧，t=0.89、P=0.41，t=1.79、P=0.89，t=0.79、P=0.44）。

结论

剖宫产和经阴道分娩这2种分娩方式对产后各时段PR收缩功能影响差异无统计学意义，剖宫产对PR收缩功能的保护作用有限 。

关键词: 超声检查, 耻骨直肠肌, 剖宫产术, 自然分娩
Objective

To assess the recovery of contraction function of puborectalis (PR) in women at different periods after delivery with different delivery modes, and to discuss the effect of delivery mode on PR contraction.

Methods

Between September 2016 and December 2016, 168 primiparas who underwent ultrasound examination at the First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University were enrolled. All participants were able to accomplish Valsalva maneuver. Participants were divided into two groups according to delivery modes: the vaginal delivery group and the cesarean section group. This two groups were further divided into three groups according to their periods after delivery: 42-60 days after delivery (group 1), 61-90 days after delivery (group 2) and more than 90 days after delivery (group 3). Two dimensional translabial ultrasound examination were performed in all participants both at rest and in maximal contraction status. Thickness of anterior, middle and posterior parts of PR were measured and thickening rate was calculated. Data were evaluated by t-test and comparisons were made between the vaginal delivery groups and cesarean section groups, respectively.

Results

In the vaginal delivery group 1, the thickening rate of the anterior, middle and posterior parts of right-side PR were (35.57±19.80)%, (31.46±20.96)% and (24.18±21.51)%, while the thickening rate of left-side PR were (25.23±14.36)%, (21.25±13.79)% and (20.60±11.58)%, respectively. In the cesarean section group 1, the thickening rate of the anterior, middle and posterior parts of right-side PR were (30.27±19.22)%, (29.50±17.21)% and (28.25±14.92)%, while the thickening rate of left-side PR were (33.02±20.65)%, (30.56±20.11)% and (28.64±14.84)%, respectively. In the vaginal delivery group 2, the thickening rate of the anterior, middle and posterior parts of right-side PR were (29.62±16.93)%, (24.94±14.56)% and (19.26±11.12)% , while the thickening rate of left-side PR were (20.17±15.70)%, (19.95±13.07)% and (22.19±14.50)%, respectively. In the cesarean section group 2, the thickening rate of the anterior, middle and posterior parts of right-side PR were (30.82±15.65)%, (17.70±10.34)% and (19.30±7.02)%, while the thickening rate of left-side PR were (18.33±11.61)%, (16.46±10.51)% and (16.62±11.69)%, respectively. In the vaginal delivery group 3, the thickening rate of the anterior, middle and posterior parts of right-side PR were (33.56±19.79)%, (25.18±11.80)% and (17.44±11.41)%, while the thickening rate of left-side PR were (28.06±10.93)%, (22.25±11.82)% and (22.15±12.69)%, respectively. In the cesarean section group 3, the thickening rate of the anterior, middle and posterior parts of right-side PR were (46.36±20.65)%, (17.00±10.34)% and (10.86±3.40)%, while the thickening rate of left-side PR were (22.54±13.81)%, (13.90±10.51)% and (18.24±11.17)%, respectively. There were no statistically difference of the thickening rate of PR in both side between the vaginal delivery subgroups and the cesarean section subgroups (For group 1, right side: t=0.87, P=0.34; t=0.32, P=0.75; t=0.68, P=0.50; left side: t=1.48, P=0.15; t=1.82, P=0.08; t=1.36, P=0.12. For group 2, right side: t=0.22, P=0.83; t=1.64, P=0.11; t=0.01, P=0.99; left side: t=0.43, P=0.67; t=0.79, P=0.44; t=1.13, P=0.27. For group 3, right side: t=0.73, P=0.48; t=1.22, P=0.23; t=0.868, P=0.40. left side: t=0.89, P=0.41; t=1.79, P=0.89; t=0.79, P=0.44).

Conclusion

There was no significant differences between the impact of two delivery modes on the contraction function of the PR, and the protective effect of caesarean section on the contraction function of the PR was limited.

Key words: Ultrasonography, Puborectalis, Cesarean section, Natural childbirth
图1，2 静息状态（图1）和收缩状态（图2）左、右侧PR厚度的测量。于尿道水平（前部）、阴道水平（中部）及直肠水平（后部）处分别测量左、右侧PR的厚度，计算PR最大收缩状态下的增厚率（?T）：?T=（Tc - Tr）/ Tr（Tr表示静息状态下PR的厚度、Tc最大收缩状态下PR的厚度）
表1 经阴道分娩组与剖宫产组产妇一般资料比较（±s）
组别 例数 产后42~60 d 产后61~90 d 产后>90 d
例数 年龄（岁） 体重指数（kg/m2） 例数 年龄（岁） 体重指数（kg/m2） 例数 年龄（岁） 体重指数（kg/m2）
经阴道分娩组 100 32 27.81±3.07 22.20±2.95 45 27.89±2.84 21.88±2.56 23 27.87±3.36 22.61±2.86
剖宫产组 68 24 29.33±2.54 21.76±2.28 23 29.13±2.17 22.60±2.68 21 30.58±5.14 22.95±3.09
t值 ? ? 1.78 0.53 ? 1.55 1.0 ? 1.89 0.33
P值 ? ? 0.08 0.60 ? 0.13 0.32 ? 0.07 0.74
表2 经阴道分娩组与剖宫产组产后42~60 d产妇双侧各段PR增厚率比较（%，±s）
组别 例数 右侧PR 左侧PR
前部 中部 后部 前部 中部 后部
经阴道分娩组 32 35.57±19.80 31.46±20.96 24.18±21.51 25.23±14.36 21.25±13.79 20.60±11.58
剖宫产组 24 30.27±19.22 29.50±17.21 28.25±14.92 33.02±20.65 30.56±20.11 28.64±14.84
t值 ? 0.87 0.32 0.68 1.48 1.82 1.36
P值 ? 0.34 0.75 0.50 0.15 0.08 0.12
表3 经阴道分娩组与剖宫产组产后61~90 d产妇双侧各段PR增厚率比较（%，±s）
组别 例数 右侧PR 左侧PR
前部 中部 后部 前部 中部 后部
经阴道分娩组 45 29.62±16.93 24.94±14.56 19.26±11.12 20.17±15.70 19.95±13.07 22.19±14.50
剖宫产组 23 30.82±15.65 17.70±10.34 19.30±7.02 18.33±11.61 16.46±10.51 16.62±11.69
t值 ? 0.22 1.64 0.01 0.43 0.79 1.13
P值 ? 0.83 0.11 0.99 0.67 0.44 0.27
表4 经阴道分娩组与剖宫产组产后>90 d产妇双侧各段PR增厚率比较（%，±s）
组别 例数 右侧PR 左侧PR
前部 中部 后部 前部 中部 后部
经阴道分娩组 23 33.56±19.79 25.18±11.80 17.44±11.41 28.06±10.93 22.25±11.82 22.15±12.69
剖宫产组 21 46.36±20.65 17.00±10.34 10.86±3.40 22.54±13.81 13.90±10.51 18.24±11.17
t值 ? 0.73 1.22 0.868 0.89 1.79 0.79
P值 ? 0.48 0.23 0.40 0.41 0.89 0.44
[1]
Weidner AC, Barber MD, Visco AG, et al. Pelvic muscle electromyography of levator ani and external anal sphincter in nulliparous women and women with pelvic floor dysfunction [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2000, 183(6):1390-1401.
[2]
陈华，王慧芳，陈梦华, 等. 经会阴超声评估盆底康复治疗近期疗效 [J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2016, 32(8):1240-1243.
[3]
李华峰，陈华，折瑞莲, 等. 经会阴超声诊断前盆腔脏器脱垂类型 [J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2014, 30(3):433-436.
[4]
王慧芳，陈秋香，刘云平, 等. 腔内超声观察未育女性耻骨直肠肌的初步研究 [J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2013, 22(12):51-53.
[5]
MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, et al. The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery [J]. BJOG, 2000, 107(12):1460-1470.
[6]
Wijma J, Weis Potters AE, de Wolf BT, et al. Anatomical and functional changes in the lower urinary tract during pregnancy [J]. BJOG, 2001, 108(7):726-732.
[7]
Maclennan AH, Nicolson R, Green RC. Serum relaxin in pregnancy [J]. Lancet, 1986, 328(8501):241-243.
[8]
MacLennan AH. The effect of relaxins on myometrial activity and cervical ripening [J]. 1995.
[9]
Snooks SJ, Swash M, Setchell M, et al. Injury to innervation of pelvic floor sphincter musculature in childbirth [J]. Lancet, 1984, 324(8402):546-550.
[10]
Jóźwik M, Jóźwik M. Partial denervation of the pelvic floor during term vaginal delivery [J]. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2001, 12(2):81-82.
[11]
Dolan LM, Hosker GL, Mallett VT, et al. Stress incontinence and pelvic floor neurophysiology 15 years after the first delivery [J]. BJOG, 2003, 110(12):1107-1114.
[12]
Allen RE, Hosker GL, Smith AR, et al. Pelvic floor damage and childbirth: a neurophysiological study [J]. BJOG, 1990, 97(9):770-779.
[13]
Chaliha C. Postpartum pelvic floor trauma [J]. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 21(6):474-479.
[14]
Foldspang A, Hvidman L, Mommsen S, et al. Risk of postpartum urinary incontinence associated with pregnancy and mode of delivery [J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2004, 83(10):923-927.
[15]
王新，李桂友，邓美莲, 等. 围生期盆底肌肌力变化趋势及持续性指导盆底肌锻炼对产妇盆底肌肌力的影响 [J/CD]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2013, 9(4):393-396.
[16]
Messelink B, Benson T, Berghmans B, 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 [J]. Neurourol Urodyn, 2005, 24(4):374-380.
[17]
Isherwood PJ, Rane A. Comparative assessment of pelvic floor strength using a perineometer and digital examination [J]. BJOG, 2000, 107(8):1007-1011.
[18]
Laycock J. Incontinence. Pelvic floor re-education [J]. Nursing (Lond), 1991, 4(39):15.
[19]
Brækken IH, Majida M, Ellstrøm-Engh M, et al. Test-retest and intra-observer repeatability of two-, three- and four-dimensional perineal ultrasound of pelvic floor muscle anatomy and function [J]. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2008, 19(2):227-235.
[20]
Thompson JA, O′Sullivan PB, Briffa K, et al. Assessment of pelvic floor movement using transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound [J]. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2005, 16(4):285-292.
[21]
Dietz HP, Wilson PD, Clarke B. The use of perineal ultrasound to quantify levator activity and teach pelvic floor muscle exercises [J]. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2001, 12(3):166-169.
[22]
Hoyte L, Jakab M, Warfield SK, et al. Levator ani thickness variations in symptomatic and asymptomatic women using magnetic resonance-based 3-dimensional color mapping [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2004, 191(3):856-861.
[23]
Brækken IH, Majida M, Engh ME, et al. Are pelvic floor muscle thickness and size of levator hiatus associated with pelvic floor muscle strength, endurance and vaginal resting pressure in women with pelvic organ prolapse stages Ⅰ-Ⅲ? A cross sectional 3D ultrasound study [J]. Neurourol Urodyn, 2014, 33(1):115-120.
[1] 章建全, 程杰, 陈红琼, 闫磊. 采用ACR-TIRADS评估甲状腺消融区的调查研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(10): 966-971.
[2] 罗辉, 方晔. 品管圈在提高甲状腺结节细针穿刺检出率中的应用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(10): 972-977.
[3] 杨忠, 时敬业, 邓学东, 姜纬, 殷林亮, 潘琦, 梁泓, 马建芳, 王珍奇, 张俊, 董姗姗. 产前超声在胎儿22q11.2 微缺失综合征中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(09): 852-858.
[4] 孙佳丽, 金琳, 沈崔琴, 陈晴晴, 林艳萍, 李朝军, 徐栋. 机器人辅助超声引导下经皮穿刺的体外实验研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(09): 884-889.
[5] 史学兵, 谢迎东, 谢霓, 徐超丽, 杨斌, 孙帼. 声辐射力弹性成像对不可切除肝细胞癌门静脉癌栓患者放射治疗效果的评价[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(08): 778-784.
[6] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[7] 洪玮, 叶细容, 刘枝红, 杨银凤, 吕志红. 超声影像组学联合临床病理特征预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗完全病理缓解的价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(06): 571-579.
[8] 项文静, 徐燕, 茹彤, 郑明明, 顾燕, 戴晨燕, 朱湘玉, 严陈晨. 神经学超声检查在产前诊断胼胝体异常中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(05): 470-476.
[9] 胡可, 鲁蓉. 基于多参数超声特征的中老年女性压力性尿失禁诊断模型研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(05): 477-483.
[10] 张妍, 原韶玲, 史泽洪, 郭馨阳, 牛菁华. 小肾肿瘤超声漏诊原因分析新思路[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(05): 500-504.
[11] 席芬, 张培培, 孝梦甦, 刘真真, 张一休, 张璟, 朱庆莉, 孟华. 乳腺错构瘤的临床与超声影像学特征分析[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(05): 505-510.
[12] 钱警语, 郑明明. 《2024意大利妇产科学会非侵入性和侵入性产前诊断指南》解读[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 486-492.
[13] 李小飞, 刘洪莉, 石丘玲, 田静, 李莉, 漆洪波, 罗欣. 自然分娩产妇低强度聚焦超声子宫复旧治疗防治产后出血的前瞻性随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(05): 534-539.
[14] 张琛, 秦鸣, 董娟, 陈玉龙. 超声检查对儿童肠扭转缺血性改变的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 565-568.
[15] 陈秀晓, 隋文倩, 王珉鑫, 吴圆圆. 腹股沟斜疝并腹腔游离体超声表现一例[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 516-517.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号