Table 3 Comparison of electrophysiological indices of pelvic floor among the three groups
Comparison item | Total population | Group A | Group B | Group C | χ2 | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MOS (n, %) | 61.03 | < 0.001 | ||||
One | 56 (15.2) | 7 (5.7) | 12 (9.8) | 37 (29.8) | ||
Two | 109 (29.6) | 30 (24.6) | 34 (27.9) | 45 (36.3) | ||
Three | 114 (31.0) | 48 (39.3) | 37 (30.3) | 29 (23.4) | ||
Four | 80 (21.7) | 37 (30.3) | 31 (25.4) | 12 (9.7) | ||
Five | 9 (2.4) | 0 (0.0) | 8 (6.6) | 1 (0.8) | ||
LAT (n, %) | 61.72 | < 0.001 | ||||
One | 39 (10.6) | 6 (4.9) | 3 (2.5) | 30 (24.2) | ||
Two | 101 (27.4) | 25 (20.5) | 36 (29.5) | 40 (32.3) | ||
Three | 123 (33.4) | 56 (45.9) | 34 (27.9) | 33 (26.6) | ||
Four | 91 (24.7) | 34 (27.9) | 40 (32.8) | 17 (13.7) | ||
Five | 14 (3.8) | 1 (0.8) | 9 (7.4) | 4 (3.2) | ||
Muscle strength of deep type I muscle fibers (n, %) | 33.84 | < 0.001 | ||||
One | 242 (65.8) | 94 (77.0) | 56 (45.9) | 92 (74.2) | ||
Two | 45 (12.2) | 11 (9.0) | 22 (18.0) | 12 (9.7) | ||
Three | 45 (12.2) | 9 (7.4) | 23 (18.9) | 13 (10.5) | ||
Four | 29 (7.9) | 7 (5.7) | 17 (13.9) | 5 (4.0) | ||
Five | 7 (1.9) | 1 (0.8) | 4 (3.3) | 2 (1.6) | ||
Muscle strength of deep class II muscle fibers (n, %) | 25.76 | < 0.001 | ||||
One | 119 (32.3) | 45 (36.9) | 26 (21.3) | 48 (38.7) | ||
Two | 74 (20.1) | 28 (23.0) | 19 (15.6) | 27 (21.8) | ||
Three | 89 (20.1) | 30 (24.6) | 31 (25.4) | 28 (22.6) | ||
Four | 77 (24.2) | 18 (14.8) | 41 (33.6) | 18 (14.5) | ||
Five | 9 (2.4) | 1 (0.8) | 5 (4.1) | 3 (2.4) | ||
Deep class I muscle fatigue | -1.10 ± 1.54 | -0.69 ± 1.19 | -1.39 ± 1.60 | -1.22 ± 1.69 | 7.07 | < 0.001 |
Deep class II muscle fatigue | -0.06 ± 0.44 | -0.07 ± 0.28 | -0.07 ± 0.54 | -0.04 ± 0.45 | 0.14 | 0.87 |
Maximum contraction pressure(cmH₂O) | 14.25 ± 13.80 | 11.24 ± 10.84 | 15.79 ± 14.87 | 15.69 ± 14.88 | 4.42 | 0.01 |