4.2 Article

Clinical and urodynamic effects of baclofen in women with functional bladder outlet obstruction: Preliminary report

Journal

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 560-565

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jog.12932

Keywords

baclofen; bladder outlet obstruction; voiding dysfunction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimTo investigate the efficacy and urodynamic effects of baclofen in women with functional bladder outlet obstruction. MethodsBetween January 2011 and December 2012, women who underwent baclofen treatment for functional bladder outlet obstruction, defined as <15 mL/s maximum flow rate and >20 cmH(2)O detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate, but without significant anatomic causes, were retrospectively reviewed. Urodynamic variables at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment were compared. ResultsTwenty women with functional bladder outlet obstruction underwent 12 weeks of baclofen treatment (oral baclofen 5 mg, three times daily). All patients reported improvement in voiding dysfunction symptoms after treatment, and no significant adverse effects were found on review of medical records. All patients underwent urodynamic studies after 12 weeks' treatment. Voided volume, voiding efficiency and maximum flow rate at voiding cystometry were significantly improved (mean, 273 vs. 368 mL, P=0.002; 62.8% vs. 73.6%, P<0.001, and 10.3 vs. 11.6 mL/s, P=0.046; respectively). Moreover, baclofen did not affect continence function, as indicated by non-significant changes in the parameters of urethral pressure profiles. ConclusionsOral baclofen can improve symptoms of voiding dysfunction, voided volume, voiding efficiency and maximum flow rate in women with functional bladder outlet obstruction. None of the patients experienced intolerable side-effects. Thus, oral baclofen may be used as an initial treatment for women with symptoms of voiding dysfunction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available