Urodynamic Differences Between Dysfunctional Voiding and Primary Bladder Neck Obstruction in Women

Objective To determine the clinical and urodynamic differences in the presentation and the value of simultaneous fluoroscopy in dysfunctional voiding (DV) and primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO); the 2 most common causes of non-neurogenic “functional” bladder outlet obstruction in women. Methods...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2012-07, Vol.80 (1), p.55-60
Hauptverfasser: Brucker, Benjamin M, Fong, Eva, Shah, Sagar, Kelly, Christopher, Rosenblum, Nirit, Nitti, Victor W
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 60
container_issue 1
container_start_page 55
container_title Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)
container_volume 80
creator Brucker, Benjamin M
Fong, Eva
Shah, Sagar
Kelly, Christopher
Rosenblum, Nirit
Nitti, Victor W
description Objective To determine the clinical and urodynamic differences in the presentation and the value of simultaneous fluoroscopy in dysfunctional voiding (DV) and primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO); the 2 most common causes of non-neurogenic “functional” bladder outlet obstruction in women. Methods A review of our urodynamic study database (March 2003 to August 2009) was conducted. DV was diagnosed when increased external sphincter activity was found during voluntary voiding on electromyography (EMG) or fluoroscopy. PBNO was diagnosed when a failure of bladder neck opening was noted on fluoroscopy during voiding. The demographics, symptoms, and urodynamic study parameters were collected. Comparisons were done using chi-square and 2-tailed t -tests. Results DV was diagnosed in 34 women and PBNO in 16. The patients with DV were younger than those with PBNO (40.9 vs 59.2 years, P < .001). Women with DV showed a clinical trend toward having more storage symptoms than those with PBNO and fewer voiding symptoms. Patients with DV had a greater mean maximal flow rate (12 vs 7 mL/s, P = .027) and lower mean postvoid residual urine volume (125 vs 400 mL, P = .012). No significant differences were found in maximal detrusor pressure, detrusor pressure at maximal flow rate, or detrusor overactivity. EMG showed increased activity during voiding in 79.4% of those with DV and 14.3% of those with PBNO ( P < .001). Conclusion Clinically, women with DV and PBNO had similar presentations, although those with PBNO had poorer emptying. The flow rates and patterns seemed to differ between those with DV and PBNO, although the voiding pressures were similar. EMG alone would have given the wrong diagnosis in 20.6% of those with DV (false negative) and 14.3% of those with PBNO (false positive). When fluoroscopy is used to define these entities, the accuracy of EMG to differentiate them is questionable.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.011
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1023295444</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0090429512004013</els_id><sourcerecordid>1023295444</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-5db91608ae0769d80f48525a2dc3a05f3e08de65a7dab6f9e7d74e046be322a73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhi0EotvCTwD5gsQlYew4TnIB0Q8-pIoiQeFoOfak8jZrFzsB5d_jsAtIXDj58rwznmeGkCcMSgZMvtiWcwxjuFlKDoyXIEpg7B7ZsJo3Rdd19X2yAeigELyrj8hxSlsAkFI2D8kR541oWyk2pL-OwS5e75yh524YMKI3mOgpTj8QPT1f0jB7M7ng9Ui_BGedv6HaW_oxup2OCz0dtbUY6Qc0t_SqT1Ocf-HUefo17NA_Ig8GPSZ8fHhPyPWbi89n74rLq7fvz15fFqZmcipq23dMQqsRGtnZFgbR1rzW3JpKQz1UCK1FWevG6l4OHTa2EQhC9lhxrpvqhDzf172L4duMaVI7lwyOo_YY5qQY8Cq7EEJktN6jJoaUIg7qbj9NhtSqV23VQa9a9SoQKuvNuaeHFnO_Q_sn9dtnBp4dAJ2MHoeovXHpLycZb6uGZ-7VnsMs5LvDqJJxq3nrIppJ2eD--5WX_1Qwo_MuN73FBdM2zDFvLE-tUs6oT-strKfAOIAAVlU_ARB3sR4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1023295444</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Urodynamic Differences Between Dysfunctional Voiding and Primary Bladder Neck Obstruction in Women</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Brucker, Benjamin M ; Fong, Eva ; Shah, Sagar ; Kelly, Christopher ; Rosenblum, Nirit ; Nitti, Victor W</creator><creatorcontrib>Brucker, Benjamin M ; Fong, Eva ; Shah, Sagar ; Kelly, Christopher ; Rosenblum, Nirit ; Nitti, Victor W</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To determine the clinical and urodynamic differences in the presentation and the value of simultaneous fluoroscopy in dysfunctional voiding (DV) and primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO); the 2 most common causes of non-neurogenic “functional” bladder outlet obstruction in women. Methods A review of our urodynamic study database (March 2003 to August 2009) was conducted. DV was diagnosed when increased external sphincter activity was found during voluntary voiding on electromyography (EMG) or fluoroscopy. PBNO was diagnosed when a failure of bladder neck opening was noted on fluoroscopy during voiding. The demographics, symptoms, and urodynamic study parameters were collected. Comparisons were done using chi-square and 2-tailed t -tests. Results DV was diagnosed in 34 women and PBNO in 16. The patients with DV were younger than those with PBNO (40.9 vs 59.2 years, P &lt; .001). Women with DV showed a clinical trend toward having more storage symptoms than those with PBNO and fewer voiding symptoms. Patients with DV had a greater mean maximal flow rate (12 vs 7 mL/s, P = .027) and lower mean postvoid residual urine volume (125 vs 400 mL, P = .012). No significant differences were found in maximal detrusor pressure, detrusor pressure at maximal flow rate, or detrusor overactivity. EMG showed increased activity during voiding in 79.4% of those with DV and 14.3% of those with PBNO ( P &lt; .001). Conclusion Clinically, women with DV and PBNO had similar presentations, although those with PBNO had poorer emptying. The flow rates and patterns seemed to differ between those with DV and PBNO, although the voiding pressures were similar. EMG alone would have given the wrong diagnosis in 20.6% of those with DV (false negative) and 14.3% of those with PBNO (false positive). When fluoroscopy is used to define these entities, the accuracy of EMG to differentiate them is questionable.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-4295</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-9995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22748864</identifier><identifier>CODEN: URGYAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Female ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases ; Retrospective Studies ; Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction - physiopathology ; Urinary system involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous ; Urinary tract. Prostate gland ; Urination ; Urodynamics ; Urology</subject><ispartof>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2012-07, Vol.80 (1), p.55-60</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2012 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-5db91608ae0769d80f48525a2dc3a05f3e08de65a7dab6f9e7d74e046be322a73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-5db91608ae0769d80f48525a2dc3a05f3e08de65a7dab6f9e7d74e046be322a73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.011$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=26128372$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22748864$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brucker, Benjamin M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fong, Eva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Sagar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenblum, Nirit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nitti, Victor W</creatorcontrib><title>Urodynamic Differences Between Dysfunctional Voiding and Primary Bladder Neck Obstruction in Women</title><title>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</title><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><description>Objective To determine the clinical and urodynamic differences in the presentation and the value of simultaneous fluoroscopy in dysfunctional voiding (DV) and primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO); the 2 most common causes of non-neurogenic “functional” bladder outlet obstruction in women. Methods A review of our urodynamic study database (March 2003 to August 2009) was conducted. DV was diagnosed when increased external sphincter activity was found during voluntary voiding on electromyography (EMG) or fluoroscopy. PBNO was diagnosed when a failure of bladder neck opening was noted on fluoroscopy during voiding. The demographics, symptoms, and urodynamic study parameters were collected. Comparisons were done using chi-square and 2-tailed t -tests. Results DV was diagnosed in 34 women and PBNO in 16. The patients with DV were younger than those with PBNO (40.9 vs 59.2 years, P &lt; .001). Women with DV showed a clinical trend toward having more storage symptoms than those with PBNO and fewer voiding symptoms. Patients with DV had a greater mean maximal flow rate (12 vs 7 mL/s, P = .027) and lower mean postvoid residual urine volume (125 vs 400 mL, P = .012). No significant differences were found in maximal detrusor pressure, detrusor pressure at maximal flow rate, or detrusor overactivity. EMG showed increased activity during voiding in 79.4% of those with DV and 14.3% of those with PBNO ( P &lt; .001). Conclusion Clinically, women with DV and PBNO had similar presentations, although those with PBNO had poorer emptying. The flow rates and patterns seemed to differ between those with DV and PBNO, although the voiding pressures were similar. EMG alone would have given the wrong diagnosis in 20.6% of those with DV (false negative) and 14.3% of those with PBNO (false positive). When fluoroscopy is used to define these entities, the accuracy of EMG to differentiate them is questionable.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction - physiopathology</subject><subject>Urinary system involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Urinary tract. Prostate gland</subject><subject>Urination</subject><subject>Urodynamics</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0090-4295</issn><issn>1527-9995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhi0EotvCTwD5gsQlYew4TnIB0Q8-pIoiQeFoOfak8jZrFzsB5d_jsAtIXDj58rwznmeGkCcMSgZMvtiWcwxjuFlKDoyXIEpg7B7ZsJo3Rdd19X2yAeigELyrj8hxSlsAkFI2D8kR541oWyk2pL-OwS5e75yh524YMKI3mOgpTj8QPT1f0jB7M7ng9Ui_BGedv6HaW_oxup2OCz0dtbUY6Qc0t_SqT1Ocf-HUefo17NA_Ig8GPSZ8fHhPyPWbi89n74rLq7fvz15fFqZmcipq23dMQqsRGtnZFgbR1rzW3JpKQz1UCK1FWevG6l4OHTa2EQhC9lhxrpvqhDzf172L4duMaVI7lwyOo_YY5qQY8Cq7EEJktN6jJoaUIg7qbj9NhtSqV23VQa9a9SoQKuvNuaeHFnO_Q_sn9dtnBp4dAJ2MHoeovXHpLycZb6uGZ-7VnsMs5LvDqJJxq3nrIppJ2eD--5WX_1Qwo_MuN73FBdM2zDFvLE-tUs6oT-strKfAOIAAVlU_ARB3sR4</recordid><startdate>20120701</startdate><enddate>20120701</enddate><creator>Brucker, Benjamin M</creator><creator>Fong, Eva</creator><creator>Shah, Sagar</creator><creator>Kelly, Christopher</creator><creator>Rosenblum, Nirit</creator><creator>Nitti, Victor W</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120701</creationdate><title>Urodynamic Differences Between Dysfunctional Voiding and Primary Bladder Neck Obstruction in Women</title><author>Brucker, Benjamin M ; Fong, Eva ; Shah, Sagar ; Kelly, Christopher ; Rosenblum, Nirit ; Nitti, Victor W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c516t-5db91608ae0769d80f48525a2dc3a05f3e08de65a7dab6f9e7d74e046be322a73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction - physiopathology</topic><topic>Urinary system involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Urinary tract. Prostate gland</topic><topic>Urination</topic><topic>Urodynamics</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brucker, Benjamin M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fong, Eva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Sagar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelly, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenblum, Nirit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nitti, Victor W</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brucker, Benjamin M</au><au>Fong, Eva</au><au>Shah, Sagar</au><au>Kelly, Christopher</au><au>Rosenblum, Nirit</au><au>Nitti, Victor W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Urodynamic Differences Between Dysfunctional Voiding and Primary Bladder Neck Obstruction in Women</atitle><jtitle>Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.)</jtitle><addtitle>Urology</addtitle><date>2012-07-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>55</spage><epage>60</epage><pages>55-60</pages><issn>0090-4295</issn><eissn>1527-9995</eissn><coden>URGYAZ</coden><abstract>Objective To determine the clinical and urodynamic differences in the presentation and the value of simultaneous fluoroscopy in dysfunctional voiding (DV) and primary bladder neck obstruction (PBNO); the 2 most common causes of non-neurogenic “functional” bladder outlet obstruction in women. Methods A review of our urodynamic study database (March 2003 to August 2009) was conducted. DV was diagnosed when increased external sphincter activity was found during voluntary voiding on electromyography (EMG) or fluoroscopy. PBNO was diagnosed when a failure of bladder neck opening was noted on fluoroscopy during voiding. The demographics, symptoms, and urodynamic study parameters were collected. Comparisons were done using chi-square and 2-tailed t -tests. Results DV was diagnosed in 34 women and PBNO in 16. The patients with DV were younger than those with PBNO (40.9 vs 59.2 years, P &lt; .001). Women with DV showed a clinical trend toward having more storage symptoms than those with PBNO and fewer voiding symptoms. Patients with DV had a greater mean maximal flow rate (12 vs 7 mL/s, P = .027) and lower mean postvoid residual urine volume (125 vs 400 mL, P = .012). No significant differences were found in maximal detrusor pressure, detrusor pressure at maximal flow rate, or detrusor overactivity. EMG showed increased activity during voiding in 79.4% of those with DV and 14.3% of those with PBNO ( P &lt; .001). Conclusion Clinically, women with DV and PBNO had similar presentations, although those with PBNO had poorer emptying. The flow rates and patterns seemed to differ between those with DV and PBNO, although the voiding pressures were similar. EMG alone would have given the wrong diagnosis in 20.6% of those with DV (false negative) and 14.3% of those with PBNO (false positive). When fluoroscopy is used to define these entities, the accuracy of EMG to differentiate them is questionable.</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22748864</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.011</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0090-4295
ispartof Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.), 2012-07, Vol.80 (1), p.55-60
issn 0090-4295
1527-9995
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1023295444
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Female
Humans
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Nephrology. Urinary tract diseases
Retrospective Studies
Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction - physiopathology
Urinary system involvement in other diseases. Miscellaneous
Urinary tract. Prostate gland
Urination
Urodynamics
Urology
title Urodynamic Differences Between Dysfunctional Voiding and Primary Bladder Neck Obstruction in Women
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T10%3A55%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Urodynamic%20Differences%20Between%20Dysfunctional%20Voiding%20and%20Primary%20Bladder%20Neck%20Obstruction%20in%20Women&rft.jtitle=Urology%20(Ridgewood,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Brucker,%20Benjamin%20M&rft.date=2012-07-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=55&rft.epage=60&rft.pages=55-60&rft.issn=0090-4295&rft.eissn=1527-9995&rft.coden=URGYAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1023295444%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1023295444&rft_id=info:pmid/22748864&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0090429512004013&rfr_iscdi=true