背景:盆底肌肉(PFM)已被认为在女性的性功能和反应中起关键作用。然而,到目前为止,证据的综合仅限于对盆腔疼痛或盆底疾病女性的介入研究,而这些研究未能完全捕捉到PFM在更广泛人群中的参与。
目的:我们试图评估关于PFM在无盆腔疼痛或盆底疾病的女性性功能/反应中的作用的证据。更具体地说,我们检查了以下内容:(1)针对PFM的治疗方式对性功能/反应的影响,(2)PFM功能与性功能/反应的关系,(3)患有和没有性功能障碍的女性之间PFM功能的差异。
方法:我们在八个电子数据库中搜索了所有可用的研究。我们纳入了评估PFM模式对性结局影响的干预研究,以及调查PFM功能与性结局之间的关联或PFM功能差异的观察性研究。使用混合方法评估工具评估每个研究的质量。尽可能使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总估计值,或提供了结果的叙述性综合。
结果:主要结局是性功能(基于问卷调查)/性反应(基于生理测试),和PFM函数(基于各种方法评估PFM参数,例如强度和音调)。
结果:共选择了33项研究,包括14项干预性研究和19项观察性研究,其中大多数(31/33)被认为是中等或高质量的。在有和没有性功能障碍的女性中进行的14项干预研究中有10项表明,PFM模式对性功能有显着影响。关于观察性研究,荟萃分析显示,PFM强度与性功能之间存在显著的中等相关性(r=0.41;95%CI,0.08-066).在评估性反应的7项观察性研究中,所有这些都表明PFMs参与了觉醒或性高潮.在评估有和没有性功能障碍的女性PFM功能差异的3项研究中发现了矛盾的结果。
结论:我们的结果强调了PFMs在性功能/反应中的作用。
■这项审查的一个优势是纳入了广泛的研究设计和结果,允许全面综合证据。然而,对这些数据的解释应该考虑研究中的偏倚风险,小样本量,和没有对照组/比较组。
结论:本综述的结果支持PFM参与无盆腔疼痛或盆腔功能障碍的女性的性功能/反应。应进行精心设计的研究,以进一步研究PFM模式,作为性功能障碍管理的一部分。
BACKGROUND: The pelvic floor muscles (PFMs) have been suggested to play a key role in sexual function and response in women. However, syntheses of the evidence thus far have been limited to interventional studies in women with pelvic pain or pelvic floor disorders, and these studies have failed to fully capture the involvement of the PFMs in a broader population.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to appraise the evidence regarding the role of the PFMs in sexual function/response in women without pelvic pain or pelvic floor disorders. More specifically, we examined the following: (1) effects of treatment modalities targeting the PFMs on sexual function/response, (2) associations between PFM function and sexual function/response, and (3) differences in PFM function between women with and those without sexual dysfunction.
METHODS: We searched for all available studies in eight electronic databases. We included interventional studies evaluating the effects of PFM modalities on sexual outcomes, as well as observational studies investigating the association between PFM function and sexual outcomes or the differences in PFM function in women with and those without sexual dysfunction. The quality of each study was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses whenever possible, or a narrative synthesis of the results was provided.
RESULTS: The main outcomes were sexual function (based on a questionnaire)/sexual response (based on physiological test), and PFM function (assessment of the PFM parameters such as strength and tone based on various methods).
RESULTS: A total of 33 studies were selected, including 14 interventional and 19 observational studies, most of which (31/33) were deemed of moderate or high quality. Ten out of 14 interventional studies in women with and without sexual dysfunctions showed that PFM modalities had a significant effect on sexual function. Regarding the observational studies, a meta-analysis revealed a significant moderate association between PFM strength and sexual function (r = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.08-066). Of the 7 observational studies performed to assess sexual response, all showed that the PFMs were involved in arousal or
orgasm. Conflicting results were found in the 3 studies that evaluated differences in PFM function in women with and those without sexual dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the contribution of the PFMs in sexual function/response.
UNASSIGNED: One strength of this
review is the inclusion of a broad range of study designs and outcomes, allowing a thorough synthesis of evidence. However, interpretations of these data should consider risk of bias in the studies, small sample sizes, and the absence of control/comparison groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this
review support the involvement of the PFMs in sexual function/response in women without pelvic pain or pelvic dysfunction. Well-designed studies should be performed to further investigate PFM modalities as part of the management of sexual dysfunction.