Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Is abdominal hypopressive technique effective in the prevention and treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction? Marketing or evidence from high-quality clinical trials?
  1. Saúl Martín-Rodríguez1,
  2. Kari Bø2
  1. 1 Colegio Oficial de Licenciados en Educación Física de Canarias (COLEF), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria, Spain
  2. 2 Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Science, Oslo, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Mr. Saúl Martín-Rodríguez; saulmrguez{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


In the late 1940s, Arnold Kegel first described pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) to prevent and treat pelvic floor dysfunctions such as urinary incontinence (UI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Several systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews conclude that there is level 1A evidence for prevention and treatment of PFMT for UI1 and POP.2 Despite the strong evidence for PFMT for these conditions, several other exercise regimens have been proposed and advocated to manage UI and POP. Specifically for stress UI, Pilates and Paula methods, Tai Chi and other methods based on breathing exercises and correction of body posture have very limited or questionable effects based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).3

The abdominal hypopressive technique (AHT) may be classified as a breathing exercise. It was developed in the 1980s by a physical therapist named Dr Marcel Caufriez, and is widely known and used in countries including France, Italy, Spain, Canada and countries of South America. Those in charge of …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @smrodguez

  • Contributors SM-R conceptualised, designed and drafted the manuscript. KB drafted, edited and revised the manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.