Comparison between conservative and surgical management in postpartum pubic symphysis diastasis: a randomized controlled trial

Satya P. Nayak, Chandan K. Panda


Background: Pubic symphysis diastasis is a postpartum complication with an incidence of 1:385 to 1:500 births. Typically conservative treatment is performed, operative treatment is also successful alternative method. This study was conducted to assess whether surgery (ORIF) provide early pain relief and improve mobility and quality of life than conservative management does in same patients.

Methods: This study is a randomized controlled trial conducted at MKCG Medical College, Berhampur from December 2014 to April 2017. Total eligible 16 postpartum pubic diastasis patients coming to MKCG hospital were randomly assigned to two groups in 1:1 ratio. Group A received surgical and group B conservative management. All were followed up at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months and upto 6 months in which EQ-5D-3L score and Visual analogue scale were measured for assessing pain and general health outcome in participants. All data were analyzed with SPSS.

Results: The mean EQ-5D descriptive index was almost similar in both groups at the time of admission, but declined more rapidly in group A as compared to that in group B. 75% of group A has this index 5 (lowest score) at 6 months whereas none of the group B patients attained it. lower EQ-5D index indicates patients had good mobility and early ambulation, less discomfort, able to do usual activity. There was a significant difference in mean EQ-5D descriptive index and pain VAS score between two groups.

Conclusions: This study showed surgical management is more effective than conservative management in postpartum pubic symphysis patients by rapidly improving general health, ameliorating pain and bringing ambulation.


Pubic symphysis diastasis, RCT, EQ-5D score, ORIF

Full Text:



Snow RE, Neubert AG. Peripartum pubic symphysis separation: a case series and review of the literature. Obstetrical Gynecol Survey. 1997;52(7):438–43.

Nitsche J, Howell T. Peripartum pubic symphysis separation: a case report and review of the literature. Obstetrical Gynecol Survey. 2011;66(3):153–58.

Yoo JJ, Ha YC, Lee YK, Hong JS, Kang BJ, Koo KH. Incidents and risk factors of symptomatic peripartum diastasis of pubic symphysis. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29(2):281-6.

Jain S, Eedarapalli P, Jamjute P, Sawdy R. Symphysis pubis dysfunction: a practical approach to management. Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;8(3):153–8.

Jain N, Sterberg LB. Symphyseal separation. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(5):1229-32.

Rommens PM. Internal fixation in postpartum symphysis pubis rupture: report of three cases. J Orthopaedic Trauma. 1997:11(4):273–6.

Joosoph J, Kwek K. Symphysis pubis diastasis after normal vaginal birth: a case report. Annals Acad Med Singapore. 2007;36(1):83–185.

Idrees A. Management of chronic symphysis pubis pain following child birth with spinal cord stimulator. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62:71–3.

Pedrazzini A, Bisaschi R, Borzoni R, Simonini D,Guardoli A. Postpartum diastasis of the pubic symphysis: a case report. Acta Biomedica de l'Ateneo Parmense. 2005;76(1):49–65.

Lindsey RW, Leggon RE, Wright DG, Nolasco DR. Separation of the symphysis pubis in association with childbearing: A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:289-92.

Topuz S, Citil I, Iyibozkurt AC, Dursun M, Akhan SE, Has R, et al. Pubic symphysis diastasis: imaging and clinical features. European J Radiol. 2006;59:127–9.

Scriven MW, Jones DA, McKnight L. The importance of pubic pain following childbirth: a clinical and ultrasonographic study of diastasis of the pubic symphysis. J R Soc Med. 1995;88:28–30.

Fuller JG, Janzen J, Gambling DR. Epidural analgesia in the management of symptomatic symphysis pubis diastasis. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73:855-7.

Kowalk DL, Perdue PS, Bourgeois FJ, Whitehill R. Disruption of the symphysis pubis during vaginal delivery. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1746-8.

Penning D, Gladbach B, Majchrowski W. Disruption of the pelvic ring during spontaneous childbirth. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79:438-40.

Dhar S, Anderton JM. Rupture of the symphysis pubis during labor. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;283:252-7.

Zhiyong H, John TR, Wade RS, Kent AS, Patrick JM. Severe postpartum disruption of the pelvic ring: report of two cases and review of the literature. Patient Safety Surg. 2011;5:2-6.

Callahan JT. Separation of the symphysis pubis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1953;66:281-93.

Seth S, Das B, Salhan S. A severe case of pubic symphysis diastasis in pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;106:230-2.

Van R M, Oppe M. EQ-5D-3L User Guide Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. 2015 Available from:

Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) [Internet]. 2011;63(11):240–52.

Kharrazi FD, Rodgers WB, Kennedy JG, Lhowe DW. Parturition-induced pelvic dislocation: a report of four cases. J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11(4):277-81.

Dunivan GC, Hickman AM, Connolly A. Severe separation of the pubic symphysis and prompt orthopedic surgical intervention. Obstetrics Gynecol. 2009;114(2):473–5.

Gräf C, Sellei RM, Schrading S, Bauerschlag DO, Bauerschlag DO. Treatment of parturition-induced rupture of pubic symphysis after spontaneous vaginal delivery. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2014;2014:485916.

Senechal PK. Symphysis pubis separation during childbirth. J American Board Family Pract. 1994;7(2):141–4.

Dunbar RP, Ries AM. Puerperal diastasis of the pubic symphysis: a case report. J Reproductive Med Obstetrician Gynecologist. 2002;47(7):581–3.

Culligan P, Hill S, Heit M. Rupture of the symphysis pubis during vaginal delivery followed by two subsequent uneventful pregnancies. Obstetrics Gynecol. 2002;10(5):1114–7.

Cowling PD, Rangan A. A case of postpartum pubic symphysis diastasis. Injury. 2010;41:657.