The aim of the study was to evaluate whether four different techniques were able to correctly measure pelvic floor muscle strength only. Sixteen volunteers performed a set of muscle contractions using the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) only, the abdominal muscles with and without PFM, gluteal muscles with and without PFM, adductor muscles with and without PFM and Valsalva maneuver with and without PFM. Pelvic floor muscle strength was evaluated by digital palpation, intravaginal EMG, pressure perineometry and perineal ultrasound. A 'non-pelvic muscle induced' reading was defined as a significant increase even though the pelvic floor muscles were not contracted. Results were as follows: isolated abdominal muscle contraction: non-pelvic muscle induced readings in 3/8 women with EMG and in 3/8 with pressure perineometry; isolated gluteal muscle contraction: non-pelvic muscle induced readings in 1/2 women with EMG perineometry; isolated adductor muscle contraction: non-pelvic muscle induced readings in 6/11 women with EMG perineometry and in 2/11 women with pressure perineometry; Valsalva maneuver: non-pelvic muscle induced readings in 4/9 women with EMG perineometry and 9/9 women with pressure perineometry. It was concluded that EMG and pressure perineometry do not selectively depict pelvic floor muscle activity.

Although pharmacokinetic exposure of the NRTIs TDF and FTC during pregnancy is approximately 25% lower, this was not associated with virological failure in this study and did not result in mother-to-child transmission.

NCT00825929.

No abstract

No abstract