PTCase ReportInternational journal of sports physical therapy2023

The "Mother Load" and Return to Sport: A Case Report of Returning to Professional Netball Following Cesarean Section.

Alexandra Diggles

PMID 36793569

WHAT IT FOUND

A professional netballer returned to full match play 16 weeks after a cesarean section.

She completed a staged, multidisciplinary program focusing on pelvic floor muscle training, abdominal control, and wound healing. No injuries or new pelvic floor dysfunction were reported at six months.

Key findings

01The athlete achieved successful return to full match play at 16 weeks post-partum.

02At six months post-partum, reassessment showed improved pelvic floor muscle function and no new pelvic floor dysfunction.

03The management plan integrated pelvic floor muscle training, abdominal wall strengthening, and scar care within a multidisciplinary team.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

This is a single case report, so it cannot determine if the treatment caused the outcome or if the athlete would have recovered similarly without the specific intervention. The athlete was asymptomatic and had a low risk profile for pelvic floor dysfunction, which may not generalize to athletes with complications or pre-existing symptoms. The program was highly individualized and multidisciplinary, making it difficult to isolate the contribution of any single component. Long-term outcomes beyond six months are not reported.

Declared interests

The author declared no conflicts of interest or financial relationships.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret this case as evidence that a 16-week return to sport is safe or achievable for all athletes after cesarean section. This outcome was specific to one asymptomatic, highly supported professional athlete and does not represent a general protocol.

Read it on PubMed →