“Bladder Effect” - An Urodynamic Parameter to Distinguish Subtypes of Urinary Incontinence in Women

Authors

  • Sasho Stojchevski University Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje
  • Viktorija Jovanovska University Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje
  • Igor Aluloski University Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje
  • Mile Tanturovski University Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje
  • Aleksandar Sikole University Clinic of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine, Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.199

Keywords:

urinary incontinence, urinary stress incontinence, detrusor instability, urodynamics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) is defined by the International Continence Society (ICS) as the involuntary loss of urine that represents a hygienic or social problem to the individual. The aetiology is multifactorial. The diagnosis of UI is important because it can result in the application of appropriate therapy. Urodynamics is a golden standard, without which every UI diagnosis is insufficient.

AIM: The goal of this study was, based on urodynamic results, to prove the existence of evident differences between the subtypes of UI.

METHODS: Eighty patients with UI were evaluated (50 with urinary stress incontinence-USI and 30 with detrusor instability-DI) according to a standard evaluation protocol. Exclusion criteria were: mixed UI and diseases that simulated UI. All patients were 36-65 years of age (mean 56). The following parameters were measured: maximal and average flow, maximal and average voiding pressure. These parameters were compared between both groups, to determine the diagnostic significance of the parameter “Bladder Effect†(BE). It is a product of the urine flow and the pressure during voiding.

RESULTS: The results showed a significant difference with a high confidence interval. Mean BEmax was 577 units in the patient group with USI, and 1014 in the DI group. Similarly, BEav was 313 units in the USI group, and 499 units in the DI group, with a significant difference and a high interval of confidence.

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the results of the study suggested that BE could be a useful diagnostic parameter to distinguish between USI and DI.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. NeurourolUrodyn. 2002; 21(2):167-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.10052 PMid:11857671

Gleason DM, Lattimer JK. The pressure-flow study: a method for measuring bladder neckresistance. J Urol. 1962; 87:844-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)65057-2

Davis DM. The hydrodynamics of the upper urinary tract (urodynamics). Annals of surgery. 1954; 140(6):839. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-195412000-00008 PMid:13208138 PMCid:PMC1609699

Hodgkinson CP. Direct urethrocystometry. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1960; 79:648-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(60)90622-0

Hodgkinson CP. Direct urethrocystometry. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1960; 87:717-734. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(60)90622-0

Brown ET, Krlin RM, Winters JC. Urodynamics: examining the current role of UDS testing.What is the role of urodynamic testing in light of recent AUA urodynamics and overactivebladder guidelines and the VALUE study? Curr Urol Rep. 2013; 14:403–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-013-0361-6 PMid:23904217

Abrams PH, Griffiths DJ. The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. BJU International. 1979; 51(2):129-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.1979.tb02846.x

Nitti VW, Tu LM, Gitlin J. Diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women. J Urol.1999;161(5):1535–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68947-1

van Waalwijk van Doorn ES, Remmers A, Janknegt RA. Conventional and extramural ambulatoryurodynamic testing of the lower urinary tract in female volunteers. J Urol. 1992; 147:1319–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37553-5

Abrams P. Bladder outlet obstruction index, bladder contractility index and bladder voidingefficiency: three simple indices to define bladder voiding function. BJU Int. 1999; 84(1):14–5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00121.x PMid:10444116

Abrams PH, Griffiths DJ. The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. BJU International. 1979; 51(2):129-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.1979.tb02846.x

Akikwala TV, Fleischman N, Nitti VW. Comparison of diagnostic criteria for female bladderoutlet obstruction. J Urol. 2006; 176:2093–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.031 PMid:17070266

Blaivas JG, Groutz A. Bladder outlet obstruction nomogram for women with lower urinarytract symptomatology. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000;19:553–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6777(2000)19:5<553::AID-NAU2>3.0.CO;2-B

Chassagne S, Bernier PA, Haab F, et al. Proposed cutoff values to define bladder outlet obstructionin women. Urology. 1998;51:408–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00634-1

Defreitas GA, Zimmern PE, Lemack GE, Shariat SF. Refining diagnosis of anatomic femalebladder outlet obstruction: comparison of pressure-flow study parameters in clinicallyobstructed women with those of normal controls. Urology. 2004; 64:675–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.04.089 PMid:15491697

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2018-04-13

How to Cite

1.
Stojchevski S, Jovanovska V, Aluloski I, Tanturovski M, Sikole A. “Bladder Effect” - An Urodynamic Parameter to Distinguish Subtypes of Urinary Incontinence in Women. Open Access Maced J Med Sci [Internet]. 2018 Apr. 13 [cited 2024 Sep. 11];6(4):648-50. Available from: https://oamjms.eu/index.php/mjms/article/view/oamjms.2018.199

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 4 (2018): Apr 15 (OAMJMS)

Section

B - Clinical Sciences

License

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2