Compression shorts reduce prenatal pelvic and low back pain: a prospective quasi-experimental controlled study

Jaclyn M Szkwara; Wayne Hing; Rodney Pope; Evelyne Rathbone

doi:10.7717/peerj.7080

Compression shorts reduce prenatal pelvic and low back pain: a prospective quasi-experimental controlled study

PeerJ. 2019 Jun 20:7:e7080. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7080. eCollection 2019.

Authors

Jaclyn M Szkwara¹, Wayne Hing¹, Rodney Pope², Evelyne Rathbone³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Physiotherapy/Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.
² School of Community Health, Charles Sturt University, Thurgoona, NSW, Australia.
³ Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia.

Abstract

Background: Common prenatal ailments negatively impact performance of activities of daily living and it has been proposed that the use of dynamic elastomeric fabric orthoses, more commonly referred to as compression garments, during pregnancy might aid in the reduction of pain from these ailments, allowing for improved functional capacity. However, the effectiveness of such garments in this context has not been established. This study aims to determine whether compression shorts are effective and thermally safe in the prevention and management of prenatal pelvic and low back pain (LBP).

Method: A prospective quasi-experimental controlled study using parallel groups without random allocation was conducted, involving 55 childbearing women (gestational weeks 16-31) recruited from hospital and community-based maternity care providers. The compression shorts group (SG) wore SRC Pregnancy Shorts in addition to receiving usual care. The comparison group (CG) received usual care alone. Primary outcome measures-Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and secondary measures Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire - 7 (PFIQ-7) and SF-36 Short Form Health Survey-were assessed fortnightly over 6-weeks for both groups. The compression SG self-assessed daily their body temperatures to monitor thermal impact. Data analysis involved descriptive analyses of the primary and secondary outcome measures scores by group and time-point, and multivariable linear regressions to assess between-group differences in change scores at 6-weeks from baseline while controlling for baseline factors.

Results: After controlling for baseline scores, gestational weeks and parity, statistically significant differences in NPRS and RMDQ change scores between groups were in favour of the compression SG. At 6-weeks, mean (SD) NPRS change scores in the compression SG and CG were significantly different, at -0.38 (2.21) and 2.82 (2.68), respectively, p = 0.003. Mean (SD) RMDQ change scores in the compression SG and CG were also significantly different, at 0.46 (3.05) and 3.64 (3.32), respectively, p = 0.009. A total of 883 (99.7%) of the reported daily self-assessed body temperatures ranged between 35.4 and 38.0 °C when wearing the compression shorts. At 6-weeks, mean (SD) PFIQ-7 and SF-36 change scores in the compression SG and CG were not significantly different.

Conclusion: Compression shorts are effective and thermally safe for prenatal management of pelvic and LBP.

Registration: Trial registration was not required (Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), 2018).

Keywords: Compression garments; Dynamic elastomeric fabric orthoses (DEFOs); Low back pain; Maternity pelvic support; Pelvic pain; Physiotherapy; Pregnancy; Prenatal care.

Grants and funding

SRC Health Pty Ltd partially funded time spent by the authors in conducting this research and provided the compression shorts that were trialled in this research. However, none of the authors have any other financial or other interest in the product or distributor of the product and SRC Health Pty Ltd confirmed in writing, prior to commencement of the research and as part of the terms of funding, its unconditional approval for the authors to publish the results of the research. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.