4.2 Article

State of the Art Review: Intravaginal Probes for Recording Electromyography from the Pelvic Floor Muscles

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 34, 期 2, 页码 104-112

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.22529

关键词

biofeedback; electromyography; incontinence; levator ani; pelvic floor; pelvis; rehabilitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimTo survey commercially available intravaginal probes designed to record electromyography (EMG) from the pelvic floor muscles (PFMs), and to discuss the strengths and limitations of current technology. MethodsThe MEDLINE EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDRO, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles in which intravaginal probes were described as having been used to record EMG from the PFMs. The World Wide Web was also searched using the Google search engine to find devices used to record EMG from the PFMs. Finally, a Canadian distributer of intravaginal probes was contacted to identify intravaginal EMG probes not identified through other methods. The specifications of each probe were determined through the manufacturer or their website, and each device was acquired by the investigators to verify the specifications and electrode configuration. The devices were evaluated against international standards for recording EMG data. ResultsSixteen different models of commercially available intravaginal probes were identified: seven from published research papers, seven using the World Wide Web, and two through communication with a distributer. The probes vary in shape, dimensions, electrode positioning, and electrode configuration, with many designs prone to recording motion artifact, crosstalk, and/or inappropriate EMG signals. ConclusionAll commercially available intravaginal probes had deficiencies in their design such as problems with probe geometry, electrode size, location, and/or configuration. Improved intravaginal EMG probes should be developed for use in research and clinical practice. Neurourol. Urodynam. 34:104-112, 2015. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据