Versi E
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Kings College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London.
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990 Mar;97(3):251-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb01790.x.
Urethral pressure profilometry (UPP) has been advocated for the diagnosis of genuine stress incontinence (GSI) but no published data exist to define clearly the criteria of measurement that should be used. The aim of this study was to examine the value of UPP in the diagnosis of GSI. Data from 102 urodynamically normal women and 70 women with GSI were compared. Thirty UPP variables from the resting and stress profiles were examined. The urodynamic diagnosis was made on the basis of a pad test, uroflowmetry and videocystourethrography. Each UPP variable was examined singly and thereafter all the measurements were examined by discriminate analysis. The single most discriminatory UPP variable was 'area under the stress profile' but the overlap between normal and GSI patients was too great to allow the test to be used diagnostically. Discriminate analysis resulted in correct classification in 78% of cases. On the basis of these results, UPP is not an accurate test for the diagnosis of GSI.
尿道压力测定法(UPP)一直被推荐用于真性压力性尿失禁(GSI)的诊断,但目前尚无已发表的数据能明确界定应采用的测量标准。本研究的目的是探讨UPP在GSI诊断中的价值。对102名尿动力学检查正常的女性和70名患有GSI的女性的数据进行了比较。检查了静息和应激状态下的30个UPP变量。尿动力学诊断基于护垫试验、尿流率测定和膀胱尿道造影。对每个UPP变量进行单独检查,然后通过判别分析对所有测量结果进行检查。最具鉴别力的单个UPP变量是“应激状态下的曲线下面积”,但正常患者和GSI患者之间的重叠太大,无法将该检查用于诊断。判别分析在78%的病例中实现了正确分类。基于这些结果,UPP并非诊断GSI的准确检查方法。