Can the Paula method facilitate co-contraction of the pelvic floor muscles? A 4D ultrasound study

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal Vol. 22; no. 6; pp. 671 - 676
• Main Authors: Bø, Kari, Hilde, Gunvor, Stær-Jensen, Jette, Brækken, Ingeborg Hoff
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Springer-Verlag 01.06.2011; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Exercise - physiology; Exercise Therapy - methods; Facial Muscles - physiology; Female; Gynecology; Humans; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Mouth - physiology; Muscle Contraction - physiology; Original Article; Pelvic Floor - anatomy & histology; Pelvic Floor - diagnostic imaging; Pelvic Floor - physiology; Statistics, Nonparametric; Ultrasonography; Urology; Young Adult; Co-contraction; Paula method; Pelvic floor muscles; Ultrasound; Levator hiatus
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1317-8

Introduction and hypothesis The aim was to compare constriction of the levator hiatus (LH) and reduction of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) length during instruction of the Paula method (contraction of ring musculature of the mouth) and contraction of the PFM. Methods Seventeen pregnant or postpartum women, mean age 28.6 (range 20–35) participated. A Voluson E8 ultrasound machine with 4–8 MHz curved array 3D/4D transducer (RAB 4-7l/obstetric) was used. Measurements were performed in the axial plane of minimal hiatal dimensions. Muscle length was calculated as circumference of the LH minus the suprapubic arch. Differences between groups were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Significance level was set to 0.05. Results There was a significant reduction of the LH area ( p  < 0.001) and muscle length ( p  < 0.001) during PFM contraction, but not during contraction according to the Paula method, p  = 0.51 and p  = 0.31, respectively. Conclusions The Paula method did not facilitate PFM contraction.