Neurourology and urodynamics · 2018
Comparison of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunctions in open versus closed spinal dysraphism: A prospective cross-sectional study of 318 patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Peyronnet Benoit, Brochard Charlène, Jezequel Magali, Hascoet Juliette, Alimi Quentin, Senal Nelly, Carsin-Nicole Béatrice, Riffaud Laurent, Le Reste Pierre-Jean, Bonan Isabelle, Olivari-Philiponnet Camille, Siproudhis Laurent, Kerdraon Jacques, Game Xavier, Manunta Andrea
Аннотация
AIMS: To compare the neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) in patients with closed spinal dysraphism (CSD) versus patients with open spinal dysraphism (OSD) as well as their management patterns.
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted between September 2007 and December 2015 including all spina bifida patients seen at the multidisciplinary French national referral center for spina bifida. NLUTD and its management were compared between the OSD and CSD groups.
RESULTS: Three hundred and eighteen patients were included for analysis: 100 with a CSD (31.5%) and 218 with an OSD (68.6%). The prevalence of urinary incontinence did not differ significantly between the two groups (43% vs 52.8%; P = 0.11), the mean Qualiveen score was also similar (2.7 vs 2.5, P = 0.22). The voiding mechanism was clean intermittent catheterization, spontaneous voiding, suprapubic tube, and ileal conduit in 55% versus 44%; 29.8% versus 47%; 2.8% versus 3% and 11.9% versus 6% of OSD and CSD patients, respectively (P = 0.02). There were comparable prevalences of detrusor overactivity (36.5% vs 38.8%; P = 0.68) and impaired bladder compliance (34.9% vs 31.7%; P = 0.56) in both groups. Augmentation cystoplasty was more common in patients with OSD (32.1% vs 11%; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort, NLUTD were more common in OSD with a higher rate of patients requiring a surgical treatment and a lower rate of patients with preserved spontaneous voiding. However, when present, NLUTD was as severe and troublesome in patients with closed versus open spinal dysraphism.
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted between September 2007 and December 2015 including all spina bifida patients seen at the multidisciplinary French national referral center for spina bifida. NLUTD and its management were compared between the OSD and CSD groups.
RESULTS: Three hundred and eighteen patients were included for analysis: 100 with a CSD (31.5%) and 218 with an OSD (68.6%). The prevalence of urinary incontinence did not differ significantly between the two groups (43% vs 52.8%; P = 0.11), the mean Qualiveen score was also similar (2.7 vs 2.5, P = 0.22). The voiding mechanism was clean intermittent catheterization, spontaneous voiding, suprapubic tube, and ileal conduit in 55% versus 44%; 29.8% versus 47%; 2.8% versus 3% and 11.9% versus 6% of OSD and CSD patients, respectively (P = 0.02). There were comparable prevalences of detrusor overactivity (36.5% vs 38.8%; P = 0.68) and impaired bladder compliance (34.9% vs 31.7%; P = 0.56) in both groups. Augmentation cystoplasty was more common in patients with OSD (32.1% vs 11%; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort, NLUTD were more common in OSD with a higher rate of patients requiring a surgical treatment and a lower rate of patients with preserved spontaneous voiding. However, when present, NLUTD was as severe and troublesome in patients with closed versus open spinal dysraphism.