Are patient symptoms predictive of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic value of hydrodistention?

Introduction Hydrodistention (HD) has been utilized as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in patients with refractory and diverse pelvic floor symptoms, including bladder pain with or without irritative bladder symptoms such as urinary urgency and urinary frequency. We sought to determine whether we...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurourology and urodynamics 2005, Vol.24 (7), p.638-642
Hauptverfasser: Cole, Emily E., Scarpero, Harriette M., Dmochowski, Roger R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 642
container_issue 7
container_start_page 638
container_title Neurourology and urodynamics
container_volume 24
creator Cole, Emily E.
Scarpero, Harriette M.
Dmochowski, Roger R.
description Introduction Hydrodistention (HD) has been utilized as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in patients with refractory and diverse pelvic floor symptoms, including bladder pain with or without irritative bladder symptoms such as urinary urgency and urinary frequency. We sought to determine whether we could better define in whom HD was a more valuable intervention by stratifying patients according to presenting symptoms. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed on 185 patients who underwent HD at our institution by a single surgeon between 1/2002–8/2004. Subjects were placed into groups according to their symptoms. Group 1 (G1) patients reported pain with bladder filling that was relieved with emptying, group 2 (G2) reported constant pelvic pain unrelated to bladder filling or emptying, and group 3 (G3) reported urgency and frequency alone with no pain component. Anesthetic capacity, presence and severity of glomerulations post‐distention, and follow‐up at 1, 3, and 6 months were recorded for each patient. Results G1 included 40 patients with mean age of 42 (R = 16–77), G2 included 101 patients with mean age of 46 (R = 20–76), and G3 22 patients with mean age of 40 (R = 20–84). The mean anesthetic capacity was 715 ml, 725 ml, and 542 ml for G1, G2, and G3 respectively. ANOVA revealed a statistically significant reduction in the capacity of G3 when compared with the others (P = 0.0072). Glomerulations were present in 74% of G1, 72% of G2, and 86% of G3 patients. 61%, 33%, & 0% of G1 patients reported improvement at 1, 3, and 6 months respectively, 54%, 25%, & 7% of G2 patients reported improvement, and 50%, 19%, & 7% of G3 patients reported improvement. There were no statistically significant differences in the responses amongst the three groups. Conclusions Although HD is frequently employed for patients with refractory pelvic pain and/or lower urinary tract complaints, results failed to identify any statistically significant differences in post‐distention objective findings (anesthetic capacity, glomerulations) or therapeutic benefits when patients are categorized according to presenting symptoms. Neurourol. Urdynam. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/nau.20200
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68699320</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68699320</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3610-cd28618195a05bb9c0d78a5b64e63d5e59cb03ba46dd2b4e1b59e5940f2a48ae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EgvIz8AIoExJD6LWdOMmESgUtEioLCCYsJ74FQxIHOwH69qS0wMR0pU_nnuEQckjhlAKwYa26UwYMYIMMaMwgFEmSbJIBJJyHLBLJDtn1_gUAUh5l22SHCgapEDAgjyOHQaNag3Ub-EXVtLbyQeNQm6I17xjYedA-Y6CNeqqtb00RqFoPrVuuTjXYLad3VXbf6PNCO6uNb3udsfXZPtmaq9LjwfrukbvLi9vxNLy-mVyNR9dhwQWFsNAsFTSlWawgzvOsAJ2kKs5FhILrGOOsyIHnKhJaszxCmsdZP0YwZypKFfI9crzyNs6-dehbWRlfYFmqGm3npUhFlnEGPXiyAgtnvXc4l40zlXILSUEuY8o-pvyO2bNHa2mXV6j_yHW9HhiugA9T4uJ_k5yN7n6U4epjmejz90O5VykSnsTyfjaRs_F0Ss8fZnLCvwDyqY67</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68699320</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are patient symptoms predictive of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic value of hydrodistention?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Cole, Emily E. ; Scarpero, Harriette M. ; Dmochowski, Roger R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cole, Emily E. ; Scarpero, Harriette M. ; Dmochowski, Roger R.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction Hydrodistention (HD) has been utilized as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in patients with refractory and diverse pelvic floor symptoms, including bladder pain with or without irritative bladder symptoms such as urinary urgency and urinary frequency. We sought to determine whether we could better define in whom HD was a more valuable intervention by stratifying patients according to presenting symptoms. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed on 185 patients who underwent HD at our institution by a single surgeon between 1/2002–8/2004. Subjects were placed into groups according to their symptoms. Group 1 (G1) patients reported pain with bladder filling that was relieved with emptying, group 2 (G2) reported constant pelvic pain unrelated to bladder filling or emptying, and group 3 (G3) reported urgency and frequency alone with no pain component. Anesthetic capacity, presence and severity of glomerulations post‐distention, and follow‐up at 1, 3, and 6 months were recorded for each patient. Results G1 included 40 patients with mean age of 42 (R = 16–77), G2 included 101 patients with mean age of 46 (R = 20–76), and G3 22 patients with mean age of 40 (R = 20–84). The mean anesthetic capacity was 715 ml, 725 ml, and 542 ml for G1, G2, and G3 respectively. ANOVA revealed a statistically significant reduction in the capacity of G3 when compared with the others (P = 0.0072). Glomerulations were present in 74% of G1, 72% of G2, and 86% of G3 patients. 61%, 33%, &amp; 0% of G1 patients reported improvement at 1, 3, and 6 months respectively, 54%, 25%, &amp; 7% of G2 patients reported improvement, and 50%, 19%, &amp; 7% of G3 patients reported improvement. There were no statistically significant differences in the responses amongst the three groups. Conclusions Although HD is frequently employed for patients with refractory pelvic pain and/or lower urinary tract complaints, results failed to identify any statistically significant differences in post‐distention objective findings (anesthetic capacity, glomerulations) or therapeutic benefits when patients are categorized according to presenting symptoms. Neurourol. Urdynam. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0733-2467</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6777</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/nau.20200</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16208660</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cystitis, Interstitial - diagnosis ; Cystitis, Interstitial - therapy ; Cystoscopy ; Dilatation ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; hydrodistention ; interstitial cystitis ; Middle Aged ; pelvic pain ; Pelvic Pain - diagnosis ; Pelvic Pain - therapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Urinary Bladder Diseases - diagnosis ; Urinary Bladder Diseases - therapy ; Urinary Catheterization</subject><ispartof>Neurourology and urodynamics, 2005, Vol.24 (7), p.638-642</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</rights><rights>(c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3610-cd28618195a05bb9c0d78a5b64e63d5e59cb03ba46dd2b4e1b59e5940f2a48ae3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3610-cd28618195a05bb9c0d78a5b64e63d5e59cb03ba46dd2b4e1b59e5940f2a48ae3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fnau.20200$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fnau.20200$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,4022,27922,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16208660$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cole, Emily E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scarpero, Harriette M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dmochowski, Roger R.</creatorcontrib><title>Are patient symptoms predictive of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic value of hydrodistention?</title><title>Neurourology and urodynamics</title><addtitle>Neurourol. Urodyn</addtitle><description>Introduction Hydrodistention (HD) has been utilized as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in patients with refractory and diverse pelvic floor symptoms, including bladder pain with or without irritative bladder symptoms such as urinary urgency and urinary frequency. We sought to determine whether we could better define in whom HD was a more valuable intervention by stratifying patients according to presenting symptoms. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed on 185 patients who underwent HD at our institution by a single surgeon between 1/2002–8/2004. Subjects were placed into groups according to their symptoms. Group 1 (G1) patients reported pain with bladder filling that was relieved with emptying, group 2 (G2) reported constant pelvic pain unrelated to bladder filling or emptying, and group 3 (G3) reported urgency and frequency alone with no pain component. Anesthetic capacity, presence and severity of glomerulations post‐distention, and follow‐up at 1, 3, and 6 months were recorded for each patient. Results G1 included 40 patients with mean age of 42 (R = 16–77), G2 included 101 patients with mean age of 46 (R = 20–76), and G3 22 patients with mean age of 40 (R = 20–84). The mean anesthetic capacity was 715 ml, 725 ml, and 542 ml for G1, G2, and G3 respectively. ANOVA revealed a statistically significant reduction in the capacity of G3 when compared with the others (P = 0.0072). Glomerulations were present in 74% of G1, 72% of G2, and 86% of G3 patients. 61%, 33%, &amp; 0% of G1 patients reported improvement at 1, 3, and 6 months respectively, 54%, 25%, &amp; 7% of G2 patients reported improvement, and 50%, 19%, &amp; 7% of G3 patients reported improvement. There were no statistically significant differences in the responses amongst the three groups. Conclusions Although HD is frequently employed for patients with refractory pelvic pain and/or lower urinary tract complaints, results failed to identify any statistically significant differences in post‐distention objective findings (anesthetic capacity, glomerulations) or therapeutic benefits when patients are categorized according to presenting symptoms. Neurourol. Urdynam. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Cystitis, Interstitial - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cystitis, Interstitial - therapy</subject><subject>Cystoscopy</subject><subject>Dilatation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>hydrodistention</subject><subject>interstitial cystitis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>pelvic pain</subject><subject>Pelvic Pain - diagnosis</subject><subject>Pelvic Pain - therapy</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Urinary Bladder Diseases - therapy</subject><subject>Urinary Catheterization</subject><issn>0733-2467</issn><issn>1520-6777</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1OwzAURi0EgvIz8AIoExJD6LWdOMmESgUtEioLCCYsJ74FQxIHOwH69qS0wMR0pU_nnuEQckjhlAKwYa26UwYMYIMMaMwgFEmSbJIBJJyHLBLJDtn1_gUAUh5l22SHCgapEDAgjyOHQaNag3Ub-EXVtLbyQeNQm6I17xjYedA-Y6CNeqqtb00RqFoPrVuuTjXYLad3VXbf6PNCO6uNb3udsfXZPtmaq9LjwfrukbvLi9vxNLy-mVyNR9dhwQWFsNAsFTSlWawgzvOsAJ2kKs5FhILrGOOsyIHnKhJaszxCmsdZP0YwZypKFfI9crzyNs6-dehbWRlfYFmqGm3npUhFlnEGPXiyAgtnvXc4l40zlXILSUEuY8o-pvyO2bNHa2mXV6j_yHW9HhiugA9T4uJ_k5yN7n6U4epjmejz90O5VykSnsTyfjaRs_F0Ss8fZnLCvwDyqY67</recordid><startdate>2005</startdate><enddate>2005</enddate><creator>Cole, Emily E.</creator><creator>Scarpero, Harriette M.</creator><creator>Dmochowski, Roger R.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</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>2005</creationdate><title>Are patient symptoms predictive of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic value of hydrodistention?</title><author>Cole, Emily E. ; Scarpero, Harriette M. ; Dmochowski, Roger R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3610-cd28618195a05bb9c0d78a5b64e63d5e59cb03ba46dd2b4e1b59e5940f2a48ae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Cystitis, Interstitial - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cystitis, Interstitial - therapy</topic><topic>Cystoscopy</topic><topic>Dilatation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>hydrodistention</topic><topic>interstitial cystitis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>pelvic pain</topic><topic>Pelvic Pain - diagnosis</topic><topic>Pelvic Pain - therapy</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Urinary Bladder Diseases - therapy</topic><topic>Urinary Catheterization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cole, Emily E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scarpero, Harriette M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dmochowski, Roger R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</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>Neurourology and urodynamics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cole, Emily E.</au><au>Scarpero, Harriette M.</au><au>Dmochowski, Roger R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are patient symptoms predictive of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic value of hydrodistention?</atitle><jtitle>Neurourology and urodynamics</jtitle><addtitle>Neurourol. Urodyn</addtitle><date>2005</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>638</spage><epage>642</epage><pages>638-642</pages><issn>0733-2467</issn><eissn>1520-6777</eissn><abstract>Introduction Hydrodistention (HD) has been utilized as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool in patients with refractory and diverse pelvic floor symptoms, including bladder pain with or without irritative bladder symptoms such as urinary urgency and urinary frequency. We sought to determine whether we could better define in whom HD was a more valuable intervention by stratifying patients according to presenting symptoms. Materials and Methods A retrospective review was performed on 185 patients who underwent HD at our institution by a single surgeon between 1/2002–8/2004. Subjects were placed into groups according to their symptoms. Group 1 (G1) patients reported pain with bladder filling that was relieved with emptying, group 2 (G2) reported constant pelvic pain unrelated to bladder filling or emptying, and group 3 (G3) reported urgency and frequency alone with no pain component. Anesthetic capacity, presence and severity of glomerulations post‐distention, and follow‐up at 1, 3, and 6 months were recorded for each patient. Results G1 included 40 patients with mean age of 42 (R = 16–77), G2 included 101 patients with mean age of 46 (R = 20–76), and G3 22 patients with mean age of 40 (R = 20–84). The mean anesthetic capacity was 715 ml, 725 ml, and 542 ml for G1, G2, and G3 respectively. ANOVA revealed a statistically significant reduction in the capacity of G3 when compared with the others (P = 0.0072). Glomerulations were present in 74% of G1, 72% of G2, and 86% of G3 patients. 61%, 33%, &amp; 0% of G1 patients reported improvement at 1, 3, and 6 months respectively, 54%, 25%, &amp; 7% of G2 patients reported improvement, and 50%, 19%, &amp; 7% of G3 patients reported improvement. There were no statistically significant differences in the responses amongst the three groups. Conclusions Although HD is frequently employed for patients with refractory pelvic pain and/or lower urinary tract complaints, results failed to identify any statistically significant differences in post‐distention objective findings (anesthetic capacity, glomerulations) or therapeutic benefits when patients are categorized according to presenting symptoms. Neurourol. Urdynam. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>16208660</pmid><doi>10.1002/nau.20200</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0733-2467
ispartof Neurourology and urodynamics, 2005, Vol.24 (7), p.638-642
issn 0733-2467
1520-6777
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68699320
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cystitis, Interstitial - diagnosis
Cystitis, Interstitial - therapy
Cystoscopy
Dilatation
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
hydrodistention
interstitial cystitis
Middle Aged
pelvic pain
Pelvic Pain - diagnosis
Pelvic Pain - therapy
Retrospective Studies
Urinary Bladder Diseases - diagnosis
Urinary Bladder Diseases - therapy
Urinary Catheterization
title Are patient symptoms predictive of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic value of hydrodistention?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T02%3A36%3A08IST&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=Are%20patient%20symptoms%20predictive%20of%20the%20diagnostic%20and/or%20therapeutic%20value%20of%20hydrodistention?&rft.jtitle=Neurourology%20and%20urodynamics&rft.au=Cole,%20Emily%20E.&rft.date=2005&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=638&rft.epage=642&rft.pages=638-642&rft.issn=0733-2467&rft.eissn=1520-6777&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/nau.20200&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68699320%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=68699320&rft_id=info:pmid/16208660&rfr_iscdi=true