|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Articular hypermobility is not a distinct entity, but a graded trait, and normal individuals with a considerable degree of joint laxity will lie at one end of that spectrum. Joint laxity is also a component of a variety of genetically determined syndromes (connective tissue disorders such Ehlers-Danlos and Marfan’s syndrome) although it can occur, in the absence of other stigmata, as a simple inherited entity. These syndromes are characterised by joint hypermobility, caused by a connective tissue weakness, which may also affect other organ systems. In general however, women are more mobile than men and racial variation exists.
Genitourinary dysfunction, specifically genuine stress incontinence (GSI) and genitourinary prolapse, is a common problem with a number of predisposing factors. Theories into the origin of pelvic floor support have debated the role of fascial and ligamentous failure, and muscle weakness. Collagen, a fibrous protein, plays a major role in pelvic floor support imparting high tensile strength. A reduction in vaginal collagen has been implicated in the development of genitourinary dysfunction with biochemical studies demonstrating a reduction in total collagen in women with stress incontinence and genitourinary prolapse when compared to controls1. Joint mobility has been associated with stress incontinence2 and genital prolapse3 but not in the same study. No, one, study has looked at both these conditions on their own when compared to controls. We set out to demonstrate whether there is an association between genitourinary dysfunction and joint hypermobility thus suggesting a common connective tissue weakness.
This
was
a
controlled
study
performed
in
our
unit
between
1998-9.
All
women
recruited
into
this
study
were
premenopausal
and
placed
into
three
groups:
incontinence
alone,
prolapse
alone
and
control
(no
incontinence
or
prolapse).
GSI
was
confirmed
by
conventional
cystometric
testing.
The
validated
Bristol
Female
Lower
urinary
tract
symptom
questionnaire
was
used
to
exclude
urinary
incontinence
in
the
control
and
prolapse
group.
The
International
Continence
Society’s
female
pelvic
organ
prolapse
grading
system
was
used
to
assess
genitourinary
prolapse
and
women
were
withdrawn
from
the
incontinence
or
control
group
if
their
score
was
greater
than
1.
The
9
point
validated
Beighton
score
was
used
to
assess
articular
mobility
which
involved
assessing
the
mobility
of
the
5th
finger,
wrists,
elbows,
and
knees4
There were: 31 women in the control group with a mean age of 41 years (range 28-56), 29 women in the GSI group with a mean age of 43 years (range 26-53) and 22 in the prolapse group with a mean age of 40 years (range 28-50). The data was analysed using Wilcoxon non parametric testing.
|
|
Control |
GSI |
Prolapse |
Beighton Score |
1.1 (± 1.8) |
1.8 (± 2.3) |
2.6 (1.8)* |
* Cont v Prol (p = 0.01)
We have demonstrated that joint hypermobility is associated with genitourinary prolapse when compared to controls as reported in other studies. There was a higher degree of joint hypermobility in the incontinent group however, when compared to controls this was not significant. These findings agree with previous work3 even though a more rigorous 9 point scoring system was used and the control group were women without a history of genitourinary dysfunction. If joint hypermobility is considered together with the known reduction of vaginal collagen in women with genitourinary dysfunction we must assume a common underlying connective tissue abnormality must exist. GSI may therefore be expressed as a milder form of this abnormality as suggested with biochemical analysis1 which shows prolapse has a lower overall collagen concentration than GSI. However, joint mobility can be acquired, e.g. ballerinas, and therefore excess strain on the pelvic floor should also be considered. Continuation of this study with larger numbers may clarify these suppositions.
1.
Neurourol Urodyn 1999; 18:283-5
2.
Gynecol Obstet
Inv 1996; 41:135-9
3. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85:225-228
4.
Ann rheum Dis 1973; 32:413-18