Exploring pelvic floor muscle function in men with and without pelvic floor symptoms: A population-based study

Comparison of Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Defecography With Clinical Examination in Diagnosing Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is frequently reported in both sexes. Dynamic magnetic resonance defecography (DMRD) is the preferred modality, mainly due to its superiority and complementary role in clinical examination. However, studies from the perspective of Indian patients are scarce and mostly restricted to females. Thus, we assessed the diagnostic performance of DMRD in patients with PFD and correlated the findings with those on clinical examination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, observational study involved 57 adult patients of either sex, presenting with pelvic floor symptoms (PFS) and diagnosed with PFD. Initially, the patients underwent clinical examination, and diagnosis was recorded. Subsequently, the patients were subjected to DMRD. The findings were correlated with the Pearson "r" correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

A significantly greater proportion of patients had involvement of multiple compartments (36 vs. 12, p<0.001), cystocele (23 vs. 8, p=0.002), and rectal prolapse (25 vs. 14, p=0.030) on DMRD than clinical examination, while there was no significant difference regarding uterine prolapse (p=0.789). Grading of cystocele and rectal prolapse as well as diagnosis of enterocele/peritoneocele, rectocele, and intussusception could be done only with DMRD. DMRD had a strong and significant correlation with clinical examination regarding cystocele (r=0.943, p=0.003), uterine prolapse (r=0.972, p=0.001), and rectal prolapse (r=0.951, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

DMRD demonstrated significantly better performance in the diagnosis of multiple compartment involvement, cystocele, and rectal prolapse. DMRD and clinical examination were significantly correlated regarding the diagnosis of cystocele, uterine prolapse, and rectal prolapse. Thus, DMRD provides information, in addition to the clinical examination, and should be used in symptomatic patients.

Comparing male and female pelvic floor muscle function by the number and type of pelvic floor symptoms

AIMS

Pelvic floor symptoms (PFS), including lower urinary tract symptoms, defecation problems, sexual dysfunction, and pelvic pain, are common in males and females. Comparing pelvic floor musculature (PFM) function between sexes may reveal important differences relevant to clinical care. This study aimed to compare male and female PFM function and to assess the function of both sexes with the number and type of PFS.

METHODS

We purposively enrolled males and females aged ≥ 21 years with 0-4 PFS based on questionnaire responses in an observational cohort study. Participants then underwent PFM assessment, and muscle function in the external anal sphincter (EAS) and puborectal muscle (PRM) were compared between sexes. The relationships between muscle function and the number and type of PFS were explored.

RESULTS

Of the invited 400 males and 608 females, 199 and 187 underwent PFM assessment, respectively. Compared with females, males more often showed increased EAS and PRM tone during assessments. Compared with males, females more often showed weaker maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) of the EAS and dysfunctional endurance of both muscles; additionally, those with zero or one PFS, sexual dysfunction, and pelvic pain more often showed a weak MVC of the PRM.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a few similarities between males and, females we found differences in muscle tone, MVC, and endurance between male and female PFM function. These findings provide useful insights into the differences in PFM function between males and females.