|
||||
|
|
Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition) >
2021 , Vol. 18 >Issue 11: 1067 - 1072
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2021.11.010
Reference range of inter-recti distance measured by ultrasonography at 42-60 days postpartum
Received date: 2020-09-29
Online published: 2021-12-14
Copyright
To evaluate the normal range of inter-recti distance (IRD) 42-60 days postpartum, and then make the preliminary decision when the treatment for postnatal diastasis recti abdominis should be given.
A total of 126 women at 42-60 days postpartum were continuously collected to perform transabdominal sonography from August 2019 to August 2020 at the Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. IRD measurements were made at the upper margin of the umbilicus, 3 cm above the umbilicus, 5 cm above the umbilicus, and 3 cm below the umbilicus in the supine, flexion, and standing positions. Two independent sample rank-sum tests were used to compare differences in rectus ventral spacing at different umbilical levels between the transvaginal delivery and cesarean delivery and between first and non-first birth groups. The 20th and 80th percentiles were used to define the reference range of postpartum IRD.
The differences of IRDs between the vaginal delivery group (n=89) and the cesarean section group (n=89) were statistically significant (P＜0.05), but there were no significant differences in IRDs between the first (n=72) and non-first birth groups (n=54) (P＞0.05). The postpartum IRDs had a skewed distribution in the vaginal delivery group, with a percentile interval of 20%-80%; the IRDs at the four measurement points (3 cm above the umbilicus, 3 cm above the umbilicus, 5 cm above the umbilicus, and 3 cm below the umbilicus) in different positions were as follows: supine position (mm): 19.60-38.30, 15.10-28.80, 11.00-21.50, and 2.70-15.50; flexion position (mm):16.70-30.90, 12.90-26.30, 9.20-19.90, and 1.90-12.00; standing position (mm): 19.00-39.10, 15.90-35.50, 11.20-28.50, and 0.00-8.60, respectively. In the cesarean section group, there was a percentile interval of 20%-80%, and the IRDs at the four measurement points in different positions were: supine position (mm): 25.92-44.04, 19.78-32.44, 14.94-28.76, and 7.78-24.88; flexion position (mm): 20.12-36.68, 17.20-28.44, 13.38-26.24, and 4.08-18.62; standing position (mm): 28.80-45.68, 21.18-40.38, 18.04-33.70, and 0.00-18.62, respectively.
As the inner edge of the rectus abdominis is the easiest to be distinguished in the flexion position, it is suggested that the maximum space between the rectus abdominis in flexion position be more than 30.90 mm (vaginal delivery) and 36.68 mm (caesarean delivery), and when the measured value exceeds the postpartum IRD of 80% women, a treatment is suggested.
Qing Jiang , Jun Gu , Guannan Feng , Jianfeng Guo , Kai Zheng , Qiujuan He , Yiqun Zhou , Xuedong Deng . Reference range of inter-recti distance measured by ultrasonography at 42-60 days postpartum[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2021 , 18(11) : 1067 -1072 . DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2021.11.010
| 1 |
Nahabedian MY. Management Strategies for Diastasis Recti [J]. Semin Plast Surg, 2018, 32(3): 147-154.
|
| 2 |
Keshwani N, Mathur S, McLean L. Relationship between interrectus distance and symptom severity in women with diastasis recti abdominis in the early postpartum period [J]. Phys Ther, 2018, 98(3): 182-190.
|
| 3 |
Kamel DM, Yousif AM. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation and strength recovery of postnatal diastasis recti abdominis muscles [J]. Ann Rehabil Med, 2017, 41(3): 465-474.
|
| 4 |
王影, 张洁, 冯艳霞, 等. 电刺激治疗产后腹直肌分离的效果观察 [J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2017, 13(2): 218-221.
|
| 5 |
Keshwani N, McLean L. Ultrasound imaging in postpartum women with diastasis recti: intrarater between-session reliability [J]. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther, 2015, 45(9): 713-718.
|
| 6 |
Keshwani N, Hills N, McLean L. Inter-rectus distance measurement using ultrasound imaging: does the rater matter? [J]. Physiother Can, 2016, 68(3): 223-229.
|
| 7 |
Beer GM, Schuster A, Seifert B, et al. The normal width of the linea alba in nulliparous women [J]. Clin Anat, 2009, 22(6): 706-711.
|
| 8 |
Rath AM, Attali P, Dumas JL, et al. The abdominal linea alba: an anatomo-radiologic and biomechanical study [J]. Surg Radiol Anat, 1996, 18(4): 281-288.
|
| 9 |
Nahabedian M, Brooks DC. Rectus abdominis diastasis [EB/OL]. (2017-03-22)
|
| 10 |
Sperstad JB, Tennfjord MK, Hilde G, et al. Diastasis recti abdominis during pregnancy and 12 months after childbirth: prevalence, risk factors and report of lumbopelvic pain [J]. Br J Sport Med, 2016, 50(17): 1092-1096.
|
| 11 |
竺佳晟, 李金辉. 产后腹直肌分离的评估与治疗研究进展 [J]. 中华物理医学与康复杂志, 2019, 41(10): 793-794.
|
| 12 |
van de Water ATM, Benjamin DR. Measurement methods to assess diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscle (DRAM): a systematic review of their measurement properties and meta-analytic reliability generalisation [J]. Man Ther, 2016, 21: 41-53.
|
| 13 |
Reinpold W, Köckerling F, Bittner R, et al. Classification of rectus diastasis-a proposal by the German Hernia Society (DHG) and the International Endohernia Society (IEHS) [J]. Front Surg, 2019, 6: 1.
|
| 14 |
Gillard S, Ryan CG, Stokes M, et al. Effects of posture and anatomical location on inter-recti distance measured using ultrasound imaging in parous women [J]. Musculoskel Sci Prac, 2018, 34: 1-7.
|
| 15 |
Gitta S, Magyar Z, Tardi P, et al. [Prevalence, potential risk factors and sequelae of diastasis recti abdominis] [J]. Orv Hetil, 2017, 158(12): 454-460.
|
| 16 |
王青, 于晓杰, 杨欣, 等. 产后腹直肌分离发生的影响因素研究 [J]. 现代妇产科进展, 2019, 28(12): 913-916.
|
| 17 |
付鹏, 江凌, 崔立刚. 高频超声在产后女性腹直肌分离评估中的应用价值 [J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(1): 79-83.
|
| 18 |
Mota P, Pascoal AG, Sancho F, et al. Reliability of the inter-rectus distance measured by palpation. Comparison of palpation and ultrasound measurements [J]. Manual Ther, 2012, 18(4): 294-298.
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
|
Copyright © Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), All Rights Reserved. Tel: 010-51322630、2632、2628 Fax: 010-51322630 E-mail: csbjb@cma.org.cn Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd |