4.6 Article

Voiding dysfunction and Parkinson's disease: Urodynamic abnormalities and urinary symptoms

Journal

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 164, Issue 5, Pages 1640-1643

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67048-6

Keywords

bladder; Parkinson disease; urodynamics; bladder, neurogenic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We evaluated bladder dysfunction and Parkinson's disease in regard to disease severity and determined whether subjective patient urinary symptoms correlated with urodynamic abnormalities. Materials and Methods: We assessed bladder dysfunction in 70 patients with Parkinson's disease and urinary symptoms using the International Prostate Symptom Score and urodynamic tests. Results: Urodynamic evaluation revealed detrusor hyperreflexia in 47 patients (67%), hyporeflexia or areflexia in 11 (16%), hyperreflexia with impaired contractile function in 6 (9%), hyperreflexia with detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia in 2 (3%) and normal function in 4 (6%). The incidence of urodynamic abnormalities appeared to increase with disease severity. However, the only urodynamic parameter that correlated with disease severity was post-void residual urine volume. On the other hand, symptom index scores increased with disease severity. The irritative symptom score correlated with maximum cystometric capacity and volume at initial desire to void, whereas the obstructive symptom score correlated with post-void residual urine volume. Also, irritative and obstructive scores were good predictors of overactivity during the storage and underactivity at the voiding phases. Conclusions: Bladder function may deteriorate progressively with advancing disease. Symptom scores are fairly accurate for predicting likely urodynamic abnormalities. Our results imply that quantifying subjective urinary symptoms is useful for estimating the severity and type of bladder 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available