This study aimed to compare sit-to-stand performance between pregnant women with and without pelvic pain. Our hypothesis is that pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain will perform longer sit-to-stand times and lower repetition counts compared to those without pelvic girdle pain.

This was a case control study conducted at the Obstetrics Clinic of XXXX Training and Research Hospital. A total of 28 pregnant women were included in the study, with inclusion criteria being 18-50 years old, having a singleton pregnancy, being between 14-28 weeks of gestation, and having a body mass index (BMI) <30. Three sit-to-stand tests were conducted: the 5-Times Sit-to-Stand Test (5xSTS), which measured the time taken to complete five full repetitions; the 30-Second Sit-to-Stand Test (30sSTS) and the 1-Minute Sit-to-Stand Test (1minSTS), which recorded the number of complete sit-to-stand cycles within the given time periods. Pelvic girdle pain was accepted present if pain was reported in the area between the iliac crest and gluteal folds, a positive posterior pelvic provocation test was observed, and the straight leg raise test score exceeded zero. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and median) were used for demographic and clinical data. Independent samples t-tests were applied to compare sit-to-stand performance between groups for the 30sSTS and 1minSTS. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for the 5xSTS.

The study included 28 pregnant women, 18 without pelvic pain (mean age: 29.11 ± 5.94 years) and 10 with pelvic pain (mean age: 27.00 ± 4.50 years). The mean gestational age was 20.76 ± 5.58 weeks for the non-pain group and 20.01 ± 4.62 weeks for the pain group. The mean BMI during pregnancy was 27.15 ± 5.05 kg/m² for the non-pain group and 27.95 ± 6.03 kg/m² for the pain group. The median values for gravida were 1.50 in the non-pelvic pain group and 1.00 in the pelvic pain group, with both groups showing a median of 0.00 for parities, miscarriages, and abortions. There was no significant difference between the non-pelvic pain group and the pelvic pain group in terms of age, gestational age, BMI, or obstetric history (gravida, parity, miscarriage, and abortion), indicating that the groups were similar (p<0.05) .The 30sSTS test scores were similar between pregnant women with and without pelvic pain, with mean values of 14.10 ± 3.28 and 13.33 ± 3.88, respectively (p = 0.602). The 1minSTS test showed comparable results between groups, with mean scores of 24.40 ± 9.16 in the pelvic pain group and 25.61 ± 7.76 in the non-pelvic pain group (0.713). There was no statistically significant difference in the 5xSTS test performance between pregnant women with and without pelvic pain (p =0 .103).

These results suggest that there is no significant relationship between pelvic pain and functionality in pregnant women, as evidenced by the lack of a statistically significant difference in sit-to-stand test performance between those with and without pelvic pain.

The study's lack of a significant difference between pelvic pain and functionality may be due to various factors, including varying movement patterns, kinesiophobia, or lack of physical training, the variability in perception and management of pelvic pain. In clinical practice, it is crucial to recognize that many pregnant women may adapt to or compensate for the pain, highlighting the complex relationship between pelvic pain and functionality in pregnancy. This suggests that the impact of pelvic pain on function may not always be directly reflected in standard functional assessments.