González RMI, Flores CO, Velázquez CPI, Martínez ECJ, Márquez AR, Aquino HJL

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 596-603
PDF size: 100.74 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: It has been estimated in English medical reports, that the frequency of vesical voiding dysfunction in urogynecological patients is around of 22-24%; however in our country it does not have any published epidemiological study about this problem.
Objective: To detect the prevalence of vesical voiding dysfunction in our urodynamic unities and describe the clinical and urodynamic findings.
Material and methods: This is a descriptive and retrospective study in which were revised the clinical reports of 300 female patients, that were sent to some of our urodynamic units because they were suffering of lower urinary tract symptoms. Assessment variables included: Patient clinical history, physical examination, urinalysis, urine culture, urethral calibration, Q tip test, urethrocistoscopy, uroflowmetry, multichannel cystometry, electromyography and pressure voiding study. The diagnosis criterion was based in the concept that Blaivas established for vesical voiding dysfunction in women.
Results: The diagnosis of vesical voiding dysfunction was established in 72 cases of the total 300 patients analyzed. The most frequent symptom was the irritative vesical type (frequency/urgency), following of weak stream. Some grade of pelvic organ prolapse was detected in 84.8% of cases. Uroflowmetry was normal in 50% of the cases; nevertheless in the morphologic aspect were observed profile signs suggestive of distal vesical obstruction in 75%, and detrusor hypoactivity in 25% of the total of the cases.
Conclusions: The frequency of obstruction in our casuistic was similar to the other authors. The obtained results permit us to confirm that the vesical voiding dysfunction in the urogynecological Mexican patients is a frequent problem in the urogynecological patient; however the diagnostic is complex and require a carefully correlation as clinical as urodynamical aspects in addition to endoscopic and image studies.

REFERENCES

1. Farrar DV, Osborne JL, Stephenson TP, et al. Urodynamic view of bladder outlet obstruction in the female. Br J Urol 1975;47:815-22.

2. Stanton SL, Ozoy C, Hilton P. Voiding difficulties in the female: Prevalence, clinical and urodynamic review. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:144-7.

3. Bass JS, Leach GE. Bladder outlet obstruction in women. Urology 1991;5:141.

4. Massey JA, Ambras PA. Obstructed voiding in female. Br J Urol 1988;61:36.

5. Abrams PA, Griffiths DJ. Assessment of prostate obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. Br J Urol 1979;51:129.

6. Chancellor MB Blaivas JG, Axelrod S., Kaplan SA. Bladder outlet obstruction versus impaired detrusor contractility: the role uroflow. J Urol 1991;145:810-2.

7. Chassagne S, Bernier PA, Haab F, Roehrbon CG, Zimmern PE. Proposed cutoff values to define bladder outlet obstruction in women. Urology 1998;51:408-11.

8. Groutz A, Blaivas JG and Chalkin DC. Bladder outlet obstruction in women: definition prevalence and characteristics. Neurourol Urodyn 2000;19:213-20.

9. Blaivas JG, Groutz A. Bladder outlet obstruction nomogram for women with lower urinary tract symptomatology. Neurourol Urodyn 2000;19:533-64.

10. Lemack GE. Pressure flow analysis may aid in identifying women with outflow obstruction. J Urol 2000;163:1823-8.

11. Nitti VW, Mai TL, Jordan G. Diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women. J Urol 1999;161:1533-40.

12. Haylen BT. Voiding difficulty in women. Int. Uroginecol J. 2000;11:1-13

13. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:167-78.

14. Tanagho EA, Miller ER. Irritation of voiding. Br J Urol 1970;42:175.

15. Dörflinger A. Monga A. Voiding dysfunction. Current Opinion Obstet Gynecol 2001;13(5):507-12.

16. Carlson KV, Rome S, Nitti VW. Dysfunctional voiding in women. J Urol 2001;165 (1):143-8.

17. Haylen BT, Law MG, Frazer MI, Schultz S. Urine flow rates and residual urine volume in urogynecology patients. Int Urogynecol J 1999;10:378-83.