Skip to main content
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine logoLink to Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
. 1995 Jan;88(1):28–30.

The importance of pubic pain following childbirth: a clinical and ultrasonographic study of diastasis of the pubic symphysis.

M W Scriven 1, D A Jones 1, L McKnight 1
PMCID: PMC1295070  PMID: 7884766

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the diagnosis and consequences of pubic symphysis diastasis postpartum, in particular the use of ultrasonography to measure interpubic gap. It was a prospective follow-up study, which included an ultrasonographic comparison between symptomatic mothers and controls, set in Morriston Hospital, Swansea. Nine women presenting with unusual pubic pain post-partum were included: there were no exclusion criteria. Forty-two controls were also studied: the only exclusion criterion was unusual pubic pain. Interpubic gap was measured with ultrasonography. Follow up was undertaken for a median of 37 months (range 2-57). An abnormal interpubic gap was found in all symptomatic women. The incidence of diastasis was found to be at least one in 800 deliveries and significant long-term disability was found in three women. Diastasis is commoner than generally acknowledged and its consequences may be severe. Interpubic gap confirms diagnosis but does not appear to predict outcome. Ultrasonography aids diagnosis and follow up.

Full text

PDF
28

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Altman D. G., Gore S. M., Gardner M. J., Pocock S. J. Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 May 7;286(6376):1489–1493. doi: 10.1136/bmj.286.6376.1489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chamberlain G. ABC of antenatal care. Abdominal pain in pregnancy. BMJ. 1991 Jun 8;302(6789):1390–1394. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6789.1390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hagen R. Pelvic girdle relaxation from an orthopaedic point of view. Acta Orthop Scand. 1974;45(4):550–563. doi: 10.3109/17453677408989178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hartfield V. J. Subcutaneous symphysiotomy-time for a reappraisal? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1973 Aug;13(3):147–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1973.tb02297.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lindsey R. W., Leggon R. E., Wright D. G., Nolasco D. R. Separation of the symphysis pubis in association with childbearing. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988 Feb;70(2):289–292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Putschar W. G. The structure of the human symphysis pubis with special consideration of parturition and its sequelae. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1976 Nov;45(3 Pt 2):589–594. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330450324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Taylor R. N., Sonson R. D. Separation of the pubic symphysis. An underrecognized peripartum complication. J Reprod Med. 1986 Mar;31(3):203–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine are provided here courtesy of Royal Society of Medicine Press

RESOURCES