The effect of pelvic floor electromyography stimulation combined with myofascial massage nursing on patients with pelvic floor myofascial pain
盆底肌电刺激联合肌筋膜手法按摩护理对盆底肌筋膜疼痛患者的影响

摘要

目的 通过回顾性分析探究盆底肌电刺激联合肌筋膜手法按摩护理对盆底肌筋膜疼痛患者的影响。方法 回顾性分析2025年7月至2026年2月期间，院内60例盆底肌筋膜疼痛患者病历资料。2025年7月至2025年10月30例患者接受盆底肌电刺激干预，作为对照组。2025年11月至2026年2月的30例患者接受盆底肌电刺激联合肌筋膜手法按摩护理，作为观察组。对比两组疼痛程度及生活质量。结果 干预前两组盆腔疼痛VAS（Visual Analogue Scale ）评分、盆底肌筋膜压痛VAS评分及健康调查简表（The MOS Item Short Fromhealth Survey,SF-36）评分对比，P＞0.05。干预后观察组盆腔疼痛VAS评分、盆底肌筋膜压痛VAS评分低于对照组，SF-36评分高于对照组，P＜0.05。结论 盆底肌电刺激联合肌筋膜手法按摩护理可显著改善患者疼痛程度及生活质量，值得推广与应用。

Abstract

Objective To explore the effects of pelvic floor muscle electrostimulation combined with myofascial manual massage nursing on patients with pelvic floor myofascial pain through a retrospective analysis.
Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on the medical records of 60 patients with pelvic floor myofascial pain in the hospital from July 2025 to February 2026. From July to October 2025, 30 patients received pelvic floor muscle electrostimulation intervention as the control group. From November 2025 to February 2026, 30 patients received pelvic floor muscle electrostimulation combined with myofascial manual massage nursing as the observation group. The pain levels and quality of life were compared between the two groups.
Results Before intervention, there were no significant differences in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for pelvic pain, VAS scores for pelvic floor myofascial tenderness, and SF-36 (Short Form Health Survey) scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). After intervention, the observation group showed lower VAS scores for pelvic pain and VAS scores for pelvic floor myofascial tenderness, as well as higher SF-36 scores, compared to the control group (P < 0.05).
Conclusion   Pelvic floor muscle electrostimulation combined with myofascial manual massage nursing can significantly improve patients' pain levels and quality of life, making it worthy of promotion and application.