Drossaerts Jamie, Rademakers Kevin, van Koeveringe Gommert, Van Kerrebroeck Philip
Department of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC+), The Netherlands and School of Mental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNS), Maastricht University, P. Debyelaan 25, POB 5800, 6202 AZ, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1889-95. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1479-6. Epub 2015 Feb 14.
The aim of this study is to explore whether urodynamics, with the addition of ambulatory urodynamic study (ambulatory-UDS), will be able to better predict and assess sacral neuromodulation (SNM) treatment outcome. Selection of patients is a critical element in achieving optimal outcome in SNM. Quantitative and qualitative results of urodynamic tests are used to justify surgical therapy and to evaluate treatment for lower urinary tract dysfunction. Therefore, these tests should be representative and subsequently offer a correct prognosis.
Between December 2002 until May 2013 selected patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (storage and/or voiding dysfunction) were included in an ambulatory urodynamic measurement database. From this database, the total subgroup of patients that underwent a sacral neuromodulation test evaluation was selected.
A total of 98 patients were included. Success rate of SNM in patients with storage dysfunction was around 70 %, according to either conventional-UDS or ambulatory-UDS diagnosis. Based on conventional-UDS, success rate of SNM in patients with hypocontractility was 67 % and in acontractile patients 35 %. According to ambulatory-UDS diagnosis, success rates were 32 and 17 %, respectively.
This study shows that conventional-UDS overestimates the amount of patients diagnosed with hypocontractile or acontractile bladder. Patients with reduced contractility on ambulatory-UDS have a lower chance of SNM success. Hence, ambulatory-UDS allows us to select patients with a real acontractile bladder and predict SNM failure. In patients with storage dysfunction, additional ambulatory-UDS does not seem to contribute in predicting SNM outcome.
本研究旨在探讨尿动力学检查,加上动态尿动力学检查(ambulatory-UDS),是否能够更好地预测和评估骶神经调节(SNM)治疗效果。患者的选择是骶神经调节取得最佳疗效的关键因素。尿动力学检查的定量和定性结果用于证明手术治疗的合理性,并评估下尿路功能障碍的治疗效果。因此,这些检查应该具有代表性,并随后提供正确的预后。
在2002年12月至2013年5月期间,将选定的有下尿路症状(储尿和/或排尿功能障碍)的患者纳入动态尿动力学测量数据库。从该数据库中,选择接受骶神经调节测试评估的患者的总亚组。
共纳入98例患者。根据传统尿动力学检查(conventional-UDS)或动态尿动力学检查(ambulatory-UDS)诊断,储尿功能障碍患者的骶神经调节成功率约为70%。基于传统尿动力学检查,收缩功能减退患者的骶神经调节成功率为67%,无收缩功能患者为35%。根据动态尿动力学检查诊断,成功率分别为32%和17%。
本研究表明,传统尿动力学检查高估了被诊断为膀胱收缩功能减退或无收缩功能的患者数量。动态尿动力学检查显示收缩功能降低的患者骶神经调节成功的机会较低。因此,动态尿动力学检查使我们能够选择真正无收缩功能膀胱的患者并预测骶神经调节失败。在储尿功能障碍患者中,额外的动态尿动力学检查似乎无助于预测骶神经调节的结果。