Exploring the Effects of Standardized Soft Tissue Mobilization on the Viscoelastic Properties, Pressure Pain Thresholds, and Tactile Pressure Thresholds of the Cesarean Section Scar

Isabelle Gilbert, Nathaly Gaudreault, Isabelle Gaboury, Isabelle Gilbert, Nathaly Gaudreault, Isabelle Gaboury

Abstract

Background: Objectives of soft tissue mobilization applied to cesarean section (C-section) scars are to decrease stiffness and to reduce pain. Research investigating these effects is lacking. Materials and methods: The authors conducted a descriptive, exploratory, proof-of-concept clinical study. Women aged 18 to 40 years who had undergone at least one C-section were recruited. A trained osteopath performed standardized mobilization of the C-section scar once a week for 2 weeks. Scar quality and pain characteristics, viscoelastic properties, pressure pain thresholds, and tactile pressure thresholds were measured before and after each session. Paired Student's t-tests and Friedman's test with Dunn-Bonferroni adjustment were performed to assess the immediate and short-term effects of mobilizations. Kendall's W and Cohen's d were calculated to determine effect sizes over the short term. Simple bootstrapped bias-corrected and accelerated 95% median confidence intervals were computed. Results: Thirty-two participants completed the study. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale questionnaire revealed differences with small and moderate effects for stiffness (p = 0.021, d = 0.43), relief (p < 0.001, d = 0.28), surface area (p = 0.040, d = 0.36), flexibility (p = 0.007, d = 0.52), and participant opinion (p = 0.001, d = 0.62). Mobilizations increased elasticity (p < 0.001, W = 0.11), decreased stiffness (p < 0.001, W = 0.30), and improved pressure pain thresholds (p < 0.001, W = 0.10) of the C-section, with small to moderate effects. The results also showed decreased tone and mechanical stress relaxation time, as well as increased tactile pressure thresholds at the different measurement times (p < 0.05), but trivial effect sizes (W < 0.10). Creep showed trivial effect and no significant difference (p = 0.09). Conclusion: This study showed that two sessions of mobilization of C-section scar might have a beneficial effect on some viscoelastic properties of the C-section as well as on pain. Some variables of interest useful for future empirical studies are highlighted. ClinicalTrial. Gov NCT04320355.

Keywords: cesarean section scars; manual therapies; pain; proof of concept; stiffness.

Conflict of interest statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
Gloves equipped with a force sensor (FlexiForce sensor, Tekscan).
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
CONSORT flow diagram of the 79 participants assessed for eligibility for participation, 70 were eligible and 38 agreed to participate.

References

    1. Bartholomew S, Deb-Rinker P, Dzakpasu S, Système canadien de surveillance périnatale, Agence de santé publique du Canada, Bibliothèque numérique canadienne (Firme). Indicateurs de la santé périnatale au Canada 2013: Un rapport du Système canadien de surveillance périnatale [homepage on the Internet]. 2015. Online document at: , accessed August 16, 2015.
    1. Okabayashi K, Ashrafian H, Zacharakis E, et al. . Adhesions after abdominal surgery: A systematic review of the incidence, distribution and severity. Surg Today 2014;44:405–420.
    1. Hesselman S, Högberg U, Råssjö E-B, et al. . Abdominal adhesions in gynaecologic surgery after caesarean section: A longitudinal population-based register study. BJOG 2018;125:597–603.
    1. Atkinson JA, McKenna KT, Barnett AG, et al. . A randomized, controlled trial to determine the efficacy of paper tape in preventing hypertrophic scar formation in surgical incisions that traverse Langer's skin tension lines. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116:1648–1656; discussion 1657–1658.
    1. Verhaegen PDHM, van Zuijlen PPM, Pennings NM, et al. . Differences in collagen architecture between keloid, hypertrophic scar, normotrophic scar, and normal skin: An objective histopathological analysis. Wound Repair Regen 2009;17:649–656.
    1. Corr DT, Hart DA. Biomechanics of scar tissue and uninjured skin. Adv Wound Care 2013;2:37–43.
    1. Corr DT, Gallant-Behm CL, Shrive NG, Hart DA. Biomechanical behavior of scar tissue and uninjured skin in a porcine model. Wound Repair Regen 2009;17:250–259.
    1. Vercelli S, Ferriero G, Sartorio F, et al. . How to assess postsurgical scars: A review of outcome measures. Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:2055–2063.
    1. Wang C-B, Chiu W-W-C, Lee C-Y, et al. . Cesarean scar defect: Correlation between cesarean section number, defect size, clinical symptoms and uterine position. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:85–89.
    1. Monstrey S, Middelkoop E, Vranckx JJ, et al. . Updated scar management practical guidelines: Non-invasive and invasive measures. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67:1017–1025.
    1. Wu JZ, Cutlip RG, Welcome D, Dong RG. Estimation of the viscous properties of skin and subcutaneous tissue in uniaxial stress relaxation tests. 15. Biomed Mater Eng 2006;16:53–66. PMID: 16410644.
    1. Koller T. Mechanosensitive aspects of cell biology in manual scar therapy for deep dermal defects. Int J Mol Sci 2020;21:2055.
    1. Gracovetsky S. Can fascia's characteristics be influenced by manual therapy? J Bodyw Mov Ther 2016;20:893–897.
    1. Ingber D. Mechanobiology and diseases of mechanotransduction. Ann Med 2003;35:564–577.
    1. Kelly RC, Armstrong M, Bensky A, et al. . Soft tissue mobilization techniques in treating chronic abdominal scar tissue: A quasi-experimental single subject design. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2019;23:805–814.
    1. Wasserman JB, Steele J, Halkiotis M, et al. . Chronic post-Caesarian section abdominal pain treated with manual fascial release techniques: A case series. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2016;20:154.
    1. Chamorro Comesaña A, Suárez Vicente M del P, Docampo Ferreira T, et al. . Effect of myofascial induction therapy on post-c-section scars, more than one and a half years old. Pilot study. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2017;21:197–204.
    1. Kelly-Martin R, Doughty L, Garkavi M, Wasserman JB. Reliability of modified adheremeter and digital pressure algometer in measuring normal abdominal tissue and C-section scars. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2018;22:972–979.
    1. Wasserman JB, Abraham K, Massery M, et al. . Soft tissue mobilization techniques are effective in treating chronic pain following cesarean section: A multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Womens Health Phys Ther 2018;1:111–119.
    1. Mense S. Innervation of the thoracolumbar fascia. Eur J Transl Myol 2019;29:8297.
    1. Mense S, Hoheisel U. Evidence for the existence of nociceptors in rat thoracolumbar fascia. J Bodyw Mov Ther 2016;20:623–628.
    1. Fede C, Porzionato A, Petrelli L, et al. . Fascia and soft tissues innervation in the human hip and their possible role in post-surgical pain. J Orthop Res 2020;38:1646–1654.
    1. Greenspan JD, McGillis SLB. Thresholds for the perception of pressure, sharpness, and mechanically evoked cutaneous pain: Effects of laterality and repeated testing. Somatosens Mot Res 1994;11:311–317.
    1. Ogawa R. Keloid and hypertrophic scarring may result from a mechanoreceptor or mechanosensitive nociceptor disorder. Med Hypotheses 2008;71:493–500.
    1. Kendig CE. What is proof of concept research and how does it generate epistemic and ethical categories for future scientific practice? Sci Eng Ethics 2016;22:735–753.
    1. Smith NK, Ryan C. Chapter 9. Assessment and treatment. In: Traumatic Scar Tissue Management. Handspring Pub Ltd. 2016.
    1. van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC, et al. . Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg 2005;116:514–522.
    1. van der Wal MBA, Tuinebreijer WE, Lundgren-Nilsson Å, et al. Differential item functioning in the Observer Scale of the POSAS for different scar types. Qual Life Res 2014;23:2037–2045.
    1. Deslauriers V, Rouleau DM, Alami G, MacDermid JC. Translation of the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) to French with cross-cultural adaptation, reliability evaluation and validation. Can J Surg 2009 Dec;52:E259-63. PMID: 20011161; PMCID: PMC2792396.
    1. Lee KC, Bamford A, Gardiner F, et al. . Investigating the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a panel of subjective and objective burn scar measurement tools. Burns 2019;45:1311–1324.
    1. Gilbert I, Gaudreault N, Gaboury I. Intra- and inter-evaluator reliability of the MyotonPRO for the assessment of the viscoelastic properties of caesarean section scar and unscarred skin. Skin Res Technol 2021;27:370–375.
    1. Park G, Kim CW, Park SB, et al. . Reliability and usefulness of the pressure pain threshold measurement in patients with myofascial pain. Ann Rehabil Med 2011;35:412.
    1. Tena B, Escobar B, Arguis MJ, et al. . Reproducibility of electronic von Frey and von Frey monofilaments testing. Clin J Pain 2012;28:6.
    1. McCullen SD, Haslauer CM, Loboa EG. Musculoskeletal mechanobiology: Interpretation by external force and engineered substratum. J Biomech 2010;43:119–127.
    1. D'Angelo A, Dierkes K, Carolis C, et al. . In vivo force application reveals a fast tissue softening and external friction increase during early embryogenesis. Curr Biol 2019;29:1564..e6–1571.e6.
    1. Haukoos JS. Advanced statistics: Bootstrapping confidence intervals for statistics with “difficult” distributions. Acad Emerg Med 2005;12:360–365.
    1. Kelley K. The effects of nonnormal distributions on confidence intervals around the standardized mean difference: Bootstrap and parametric confidence intervals. Educ Psychol Meas 2005;65:51–69.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
    1. Tomczak M, Tomczak E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. Trends in Sport Sciences 2014;1:19–25.
    1. Seliger G, Chaoui K, Lautenschläger C, et al. . Ultrasound elastography of the lower uterine segment in women with a previous cesarean section: Comparison of in-/ex-vivo elastography versus tensile-stress-strain-rupture analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;225:172–180.
    1. Buhimschi CS, Zhao G, Sora N, et al. . Myometrial wound healing post-cesarean delivery in the MRL/MpJ mouse model of uterine scarring. Am J Pathol 2010;177:197–207.
    1. Kiener A, Galli L, Commare A, et al. . EP22.04: Assessment of Caesarean section scar stiffness by ultrasound elastography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2017;50:359–359.
    1. Bijlard E, Uiterwaal L, Kouwenberg CA, et al. A systematic review on the prevalence, etiology, and pathophysiology of intrinsic pain in dermal scar tissue. Pain Physician 2017 Feb;20:1–13. PMID: .
    1. Beyaz SG, Özocak H, Ergönenç T, et al. Chronic postsurgical pain and neuropathic symptoms after abdominal hysterectomy: A silent epidemic. Medicine 2016;95:e4484.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅