British journal of urology · 1997
The influence of colonic enema irrigation on urodynamic findings in patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction.
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.
de Kort L M, Nesselaar C H, van Gool J D, de Jong T P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether colonic enema irrigation influences the urodynamic characteristics of patients with spina bifida, an overactive bladder and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia (DSD).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 1991, 83 patients with spina bifida at our institution have treated their bowel dysfunction by colonic irrigation every 24-48 h. In 12 patients (seven boys and five girls, mean age 7.7 years, range 0.7-13.8) with an overactive bladder and DSD, urodynamic studies of the bladder before and after enema treatment were available with no intercurrent changes in urological therapy.
RESULTS: There were no significant changes overall in bladder capacity, leak-point pressure, bladder compliance and bladder instability in the selected group of children.
CONCLUSION: Although enema therapy for bowel treatment in patients with spina bifida gave good results for faecal incontinence, with good patient compliance, no favourable effect on bladder function should be expected in most patients with a high-risk urinary tract dysfunction. Further study is needed to determine factors in patients who will benefit urologically from enema treatment.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 1991, 83 patients with spina bifida at our institution have treated their bowel dysfunction by colonic irrigation every 24-48 h. In 12 patients (seven boys and five girls, mean age 7.7 years, range 0.7-13.8) with an overactive bladder and DSD, urodynamic studies of the bladder before and after enema treatment were available with no intercurrent changes in urological therapy.
RESULTS: There were no significant changes overall in bladder capacity, leak-point pressure, bladder compliance and bladder instability in the selected group of children.
CONCLUSION: Although enema therapy for bowel treatment in patients with spina bifida gave good results for faecal incontinence, with good patient compliance, no favourable effect on bladder function should be expected in most patients with a high-risk urinary tract dysfunction. Further study is needed to determine factors in patients who will benefit urologically from enema treatment.