DeLancey John O L, Trowbridge Elisa R, Miller Janis M, Morgan Daniel M, Guire Kenneth, Fenner Dee E, Weadock William J, Ashton-Miller James A
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pelvic Floor Research Group, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
J Urol. 2008 Jun;179(6):2286-90; discussion 2290. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.098. Epub 2008 Apr 18.
Treatment strategies for stress incontinence are based on the concept that urethral mobility is the predominant causal factor with sphincter function a secondary contributor. To our knowledge the relative importance of these 2 factors has not been assessed in properly controlled studies.
The Research on Stress Incontinence Etiology project is a case-control study that compared 103 women with stress incontinence and 108 asymptomatic controls in groups matched for age, race, parity and hysterectomy. Urethral closure pressure, urethral and pelvic organ support, levator ani muscle function and intravesical pressure were measured and analyzed using logistic regression and multivariable modeling.
Mean +/- SD maximal urethral closure pressure was 42% lower in cases (40.8 +/- 17.1 vs 70.2 +/- 22.4 cm H(2)O, d = 1.47). Lesser effect sizes were seen for support parameters, including resting urethral axis and urethrovaginal support (d = 0.41 and 0.50, respectively). Other pelvic floor parameters, including genital hiatus size and urethral axis during muscle contraction (d = 0.60 and 0.58, respectively), differed but levator strength and levator defect status did not. Maximum cough pressure, which is an assessment of stress on the continence mechanism, was also different (d = 0.43). After adjusting for body mass index the maximal urethral closure pressure alone correctly classified 50% of cases. Adding the best predictors for urethrovaginal support and cough strength to the model added 11% of predictive ability.
The finding that maximal urethral closure pressure and not urethral support is the factor most strongly associated with stress incontinence implies that improving urethral function may have therapeutic promise.
压力性尿失禁的治疗策略基于这样一种观念,即尿道活动度是主要致病因素,而括约肌功能是次要因素。据我们所知,这两个因素的相对重要性尚未在适当的对照研究中得到评估。
压力性尿失禁病因研究项目是一项病例对照研究,比较了103例压力性尿失禁女性和108例无症状对照者,两组在年龄、种族、产次和子宫切除术方面相匹配。测量并分析尿道闭合压、尿道及盆腔器官支撑、肛提肌功能和膀胱内压,采用逻辑回归和多变量建模。
病例组平均最大尿道闭合压±标准差比对照组低42%(40.8±17.1 vs 70.2±22.4 cm H₂O,效应量d = 1.47)。支撑参数的效应量较小,包括静息尿道轴和尿道阴道支撑(效应量分别为0.41和0.50)。其他盆底参数,包括生殖裂孔大小和肌肉收缩时的尿道轴(效应量分别为0.60和0.58)有所不同,但肛提肌力量和肛提肌缺陷状态没有差异。最大咳嗽压力,即对控尿机制压力的评估,也有所不同(效应量d = 0.43)。在调整体重指数后,仅最大尿道闭合压就能正确分类50%的病例。将尿道阴道支撑和咳嗽强度的最佳预测指标添加到模型中,可增加11%的预测能力。
最大尿道闭合压而非尿道支撑是与压力性尿失禁最密切相关的因素,这一发现意味着改善尿道功能可能具有治疗前景。