Is pregnancy related pelvic girdle pain associated with altered kinematic, kinetic and motor control of the pelvis? A systematic review
ABSTRACT To determine the level of evidence for altered mechanical and motor control of the pelvis being associated with pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (PPGP).
This systematic review was undertaken by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six different databases were used for the electronic search. Observational cohorts, cross sectional or case-control studies focused on the association between altered kinematic/kinetic and motor control of the pelvis and PPGP during pregnancy were included. Study selection was conducted by two reviewers who firstly screened for titles, then for abstracts and finally for full articles. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the guidelines proposed by the Cochrane back review group were used to assess risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.
354 references were identified, and after excluding unwanted articles, 10 studies met the final inclusion criteria. Studies not related to motor control or pelvic mobility were the main reason for exclusion. Seven studies were case-control and three were prospective cohort studies. Seven studies were ranked as high while three were ranked as low quality. Among the high quality studies, six found association between PPGP and altered motor control and mobility of the pelvis.
The level of evidence for an association between PPGP and altered motor control and kinematic or kinetic parameters of the pelvis was found to be moderate.
- SourceAvailable from: Evelien Hilde Verstraete
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "A case report of Sverdrup et al. (2004) mentioned a dramatic exacerbation of PGP when a levonorgestrel intrauterine system is inserted. 2007; Vleeming et al. 2008; Vermani et al., 2009; Kanakaris et al., 2011; Katonis et al., 2011; Aldabe et al., 2012a). Although the onset of PPGP remains unclear, hormonal factors in combination with nonoptimal stability, as a consequence of motor control impairment and/or maladaptive behaviour, is proposed as the most plausible hypothesis (O'Sullivan and Beales, 2007; Vleeming et al., 2008; Vermani et al., 2009). "
ABSTRACT: Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) is a common condition during or after pregnancy with pain and disability as most important symptoms. These symptoms have a wide range of clinical presentation. Most doctors perceive pregnancy related pelvic girdle pain (PPGP) as 'physiologic' or 'expected during pregnancy', where no treatment is needed. As such women with PPGP mostly experience little recognition. However, many scientific literature describes PPGP as being severe with considerable levels of pain and disability and socio-economic consequences in about 20% of the cases. We aimed to (1) inform the gynecologist/obstetrician about the etiology, diagnosis, risk factors, and treatment options of PPGP and (2) to make a proposition for an adequate clinical care path. A systematic search of electronic databases and a check of reference lists for recent researches about the diagnosis, etiology, risk factors and treatment of PPGP. Adequate treatment is based on classification in subgroups according to the different etiologic factors. The various diagnostic tests can help to make a differentiation in the several pelvic girdle pain syndromes and possibly reveal the underlying biomechanical problem. This classification can guide appropriate multidimensional and multidisciplinary management. A proposal for a clinical care path starts with recognition of gynecologist and midwife for this disorder. Both care takers can make a preliminary diagnosis of PPGP and should refer to a physiatrist, who can make a definite diagnosis. Together with a physiotherapist, the latter can determine an individual tailored exercise program based on the influencing bio-psycho-social factors.03/2013; 5(1):33-43.
- European Spine Journal 02/2013; 22(2). DOI:10.1007/s00586-012-2630-3 · 2.47 Impact Factor
- European Spine Journal 02/2006; 15(1):8-15. DOI:10.1007/s00586-005-1062-8 · 2.47 Impact Factor