Correlation between urodynamic test results, perineal ultrasound and degree of stress urinary incontinence

Bai, S.Wook.; Chung, K.Ah.; Rha, K.Ho.; Kim, S.Un.; Kim, S.Kwang.; Park, K.Hyun.

Journal of Reproductive Medicine 48(9): 718-722

2003


ISSN/ISBN: 0024-7758
PMID: 14562638
Accession: 010390560

Download citation:  
Text
  |  
BibTeX
  |  
RIS

Article/Abstract emailed within 1 workday
Payments are secure & encrypted
Powered by Stripe
Powered by PayPal

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the results of urodynamic tests and the perineal ultrasound were different between grade 1 and 2 stress urinary incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: Forty premenopausal women with a diagnosis of stress urinary incontinence according to urodynamic tests were enrolled in this study. Stress urinary incontinence was defined as urine leakage during stress without detrusor contraction. Twenty patients had grade 1 and 20 had grade 2 stress urinary incontinence. We compared the parameters of uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, urethral pressure profile, dynamic urethral function test, perineal ultrasound and stress urethral axis between grade 1 and 2 levels of stress urinanry incontience. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, parity or body mass index between the grade 1 and 2 patients. Uroflowmetry results showed that there were no significant differences in maximal flow rate, average flow rate, voided volume or residual urine between grade 1 and 2. As to cystometry results, only the first desire to void was significantly increased in grade 2 over 1 (304+-113.65 vs. 194+-48.24 (mL), P=.04). There were no significant differences in any of the urethral pressure profile parameters. In the dynamic test, the Valsalva leak point pressure and cough leak point pressure were not significantly different between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in perineal ultrasound parameters or the stress urethral axis. CONCLUSION: Most stress urinary incontinence-related parameters showed no difference between the grade 1 and 2, and no urodynamic or ultrasonographic evidence for a difference between the grade 1 and 2 was demonstrated.