Article
A comparison of stress leak-point pressure and maximal urethral closure pressure in patients with genuine stress incontinence.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA.
Obstetrics and Gynecology (impact factor:
4.73).
05/1995;
85(5 Pt 1):704-8.
pp.704-8
Source: PubMed
-
Citations (0)
- Cited In (4)
-
Article: Accuracy of methods for urinary detection in women with stress urinary incontinence.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We assessed the accuracy of urinary detection by visualization compared with a method using the urethral channel of a transurethral, three-channel urodynamic catheter. This was a case series of 52 patients presenting with stress urinary incontinence over 2 years. Patients underwent video-urodynamic studies in both the supine and the erect positions by use of two techniques for measuring leak point pressure (LPP) by one examiner. LPP was determined as the intravesical pressure simultaneous to the starting point of urethral pressure changes through the urethral channel of a urodynamic catheter (LPP-ure) and then by visualization (LPP-vis) during different events. We also measured the time related to the provocations and the time to mark the leakage on the urodynamic machine by the examiner. The LPP-ure values (cough supine: 42.1+/-18.7, cough erect: 42.1+/-21.8, Valsalva supine: 42.2+/-23.3, Valsalva erect: 41.0+/-22.6 cmH(2)O) were significantly lower than the LPP-vis values (89.9+/-29.4, 97.4+/-30.4, 70.6+/-25.2, and 74.4+/-32.6 cmH(2)O, respectively, all p<0.001). Whereas the actual leakages happened during the pressure increases, urodynamic recording by visualization was done after those increases had finished. The use of visualization as a urinary detection method entails potential errors that cannot be adjusted for on that time scale. Our results emphasize the need to standardize the methodologies used for urinary leakage detection, because this measurement is closely related to the accuracy of measurement of leak point pressure.Korean journal of urology 08/2010; 51(8):537-43. -
Article: Severe stress urinary incontinence: Objective analysis of risk factors.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To assess differences between patients suffering from severe degree of stress urinary incontinence versus those with mild degree and to detect the risk factors of severity. 118 patients suffered from pure SUI were enrolled in a prospective study. According to VLPP, patients were categorized into 2 groups: mild (VLPP>60) and severe (VLPP<60). Risk factors included age, parity, gravidity, menopausal status, co-morbidities and surgical history were investigated. 35 patients had severe SUI; their mean VLPP±SD was 47±8cm H2O, while in 83 patients with mild SUI, mean VLPP was 90±20cm H2O. No significant difference was detected between both groups concerning clinical parameters except for the presence of bronchial asthma in which the difference was approaching statistical significance (P=0.07). Patients with multiple deliveries have triple risk to develop severe SUI. Obese patients with BMI>30 and those with bronchial asthma are more prone to develop severe type (OR: 1.9, 95%CI: .07-5 and OR: 9.4, 95% CI: 0.7-25 respectively). Bronchial asthma, obesity and multiple parities might be associated with low VLPP. Severe SUI is a resultant of multi-factors rather than one risk factor.Maturitas 02/2011; 68(4):374-7. · 2.77 Impact Factor -
Article: Recommandations pour la pratique de l’examen urodynamique dans l’exploration d’une incontinence urinaire féminine non neurologique
Pelvi-périnéologie 04/2012; 3(4):321-343. · 0.07 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
Keywords
80% sensitive
appropriate cutoff level
contingency tables
correlation coefficient
critical level
critical stress leak-point pressure value
detecting
equal
genuine stress incontinence
low-pressure urethra
maximal urethral closure pressure
Maximal urethral closure pressures
multichannel urodynamics
poor clinical relationship
prospectively
stress leak-point pressure
stress leak-point pressure values
stress leak-point pressures