Neurourology and urodynamics · 2018
Risk of prolapse and urinary complications in adult spina bifida patients with neurogenic acontractile detrusor using clean intermittent catheterization versus Valsalva voiding.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
El Akri Mehdi, Brochard Charlène, Hascoet Juliette, Jezequel Magali, Alimi Quentin, Khene Zine-Eddine, Richard Claire, Bonan Isabelle, Kerdraon Jacques, Gamé Xavier, Manunta Andrea, Siproudhis Laurent, Peyronnet Benoit
Аннотация
AIMS: To assess the relative risks of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and urinary complications in adult spina bifida patients with neurogenic acontractile detrusor voiding with Valsalva versus those using clean-intermittent catheterization (CIC).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis including all spina bifida patients with neurogenic acontractile detrusor with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Patients were then divided in two groups according to their bladder management: voiding with Valsalva versus CIC. The primary endpoint was any de novo or worsened rectal and/or pelvic organ prolapse (POP) diagnosed during follow-up. The secondary outcome was urinary complications defined as febrile urinary tract infections (UTI) and/or urolithiasis and/or renal failure.
RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (50.9% were males) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria: 28 voiding with Valsalva and 27 performing CIC. At baseline, the rates of vaginal prolapse (44.4% vs 50%; P = 0.99), and rectal prolapse/intussusception (25.9% vs 21.4%; P = 0.76) were similar in both groups. After a median follow-up of 80.6 and 65.6 months, respectively (P = 0.29), the rate of de novo or worsened rectal prolapse/intussusception was higher in the Valsalva voiding group than in the CIC group (32.1% vs 3.7%; P = 0.01). De novo or worsened vaginal prolapses were also more common in the Valsalva voiding group, but it did not reach statistical significance (33.3% vs 11.1%; P = 0.29).
CONCLUSIONS: Valsalva voiding might be harmful in adult spina bifida patients with neurogenic acontractile detrusor as it may increase the risk of rectal prolapse/intussusception. Overall, the prevalence of POP and rectal prolapse was high in both groups.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis including all spina bifida patients with neurogenic acontractile detrusor with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Patients were then divided in two groups according to their bladder management: voiding with Valsalva versus CIC. The primary endpoint was any de novo or worsened rectal and/or pelvic organ prolapse (POP) diagnosed during follow-up. The secondary outcome was urinary complications defined as febrile urinary tract infections (UTI) and/or urolithiasis and/or renal failure.
RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (50.9% were males) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria: 28 voiding with Valsalva and 27 performing CIC. At baseline, the rates of vaginal prolapse (44.4% vs 50%; P = 0.99), and rectal prolapse/intussusception (25.9% vs 21.4%; P = 0.76) were similar in both groups. After a median follow-up of 80.6 and 65.6 months, respectively (P = 0.29), the rate of de novo or worsened rectal prolapse/intussusception was higher in the Valsalva voiding group than in the CIC group (32.1% vs 3.7%; P = 0.01). De novo or worsened vaginal prolapses were also more common in the Valsalva voiding group, but it did not reach statistical significance (33.3% vs 11.1%; P = 0.29).
CONCLUSIONS: Valsalva voiding might be harmful in adult spina bifida patients with neurogenic acontractile detrusor as it may increase the risk of rectal prolapse/intussusception. Overall, the prevalence of POP and rectal prolapse was high in both groups.