Ginekologia polska · 2023
Could pelvic floor sonography be a standalone method for excluding genuine stress urinary incontinence in women?
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.
Malmur Mariusz, Mlodawski Jakub, Mlodawska Marta, Misiek Marcin, Adamczyk-Gruszka Olga, Niziurski Piotr, Gluszek Stanislaw, Rokita Wojciech
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Determine whether introital pelvic floor sonography with transvaginal probe (PFS-TV) can be an independent method in the diagnosis of genuine stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and to create a ultrasonographic diagnostic model to objectify diagnostic process.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study involved 315 patients with a history of urinary incontinence problems. Based on the clinical examination and urodynamic examination, the final diagnosis was made. Patients were divided into two groups. Group I included women with SUI and Group II included patients without SUI (OAB and no-UI). Each patient underwent PFS-TV at rest and during straining. The groups were compared in terms of ultrasound parameters.
RESULTS: Patients from both groups differed statistically in a significant way (p < 0.05) in terms of mean distance between the lower edge of the pubic symphysis at rest 19 mm vs 22 mm (Group I vs Group II) and during straining (D1 and D2) 22 mm vs 26 mm, the average value of the γ angle (at rest (γ1) 37.5° vs 40° and during straining (γ2) and 66° vs 58.5°, average difference value of angle γ during straining and at rest (γ2-γ1) 29° vs 14°, and frequency of urethral funneling 89% vs 17%. Two parameters studied during PFS-TV were included in the logistic regression model used to exclude the stress component of urinary incontinence. Diagnostic test parameters of model were sensitivity 86.6%, specificity 90.4%, accuracy 93.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: PFS-TV makes it possible to exclude the stress component of urinary incontinence. The developed logistic regression model allows for the objectification of the results of ultrasound examination in patients with urinary incontinence.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study involved 315 patients with a history of urinary incontinence problems. Based on the clinical examination and urodynamic examination, the final diagnosis was made. Patients were divided into two groups. Group I included women with SUI and Group II included patients without SUI (OAB and no-UI). Each patient underwent PFS-TV at rest and during straining. The groups were compared in terms of ultrasound parameters.
RESULTS: Patients from both groups differed statistically in a significant way (p < 0.05) in terms of mean distance between the lower edge of the pubic symphysis at rest 19 mm vs 22 mm (Group I vs Group II) and during straining (D1 and D2) 22 mm vs 26 mm, the average value of the γ angle (at rest (γ1) 37.5° vs 40° and during straining (γ2) and 66° vs 58.5°, average difference value of angle γ during straining and at rest (γ2-γ1) 29° vs 14°, and frequency of urethral funneling 89% vs 17%. Two parameters studied during PFS-TV were included in the logistic regression model used to exclude the stress component of urinary incontinence. Diagnostic test parameters of model were sensitivity 86.6%, specificity 90.4%, accuracy 93.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: PFS-TV makes it possible to exclude the stress component of urinary incontinence. The developed logistic regression model allows for the objectification of the results of ultrasound examination in patients with urinary incontinence.