4.5 Article

Diagnostic tools for assessment of urinary dysfunction in MS patients without urinary disturbances

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 437-442

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-015-2415-7

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; Urinary dysfunction; Post-void residual volume; Bladder diary; IPSS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many guidelines are available for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, but no agreement exists on the best approach for subjects without LUTSs. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether LUTSs can be detected in MS patients asymptomatic for urinary dysfunction, comparing three different tools [measure of post-void residual volume (PRV), bladder diary (BD), a focused questionnaire (IPSS)], and whether disability, disease duration and signs of pyramidal involvement are linked to their subclinical presence. 178 MS patients (118 women) have been included (mean age 41.2 years, mean disease duration 11.3 years, mean EDSS 2.2), and tested with the above-mentioned tools. PRV was abnormal in 14 subjects (7.8 %), associated to abnormal findings at IPSS in 3 cases, at BD in 2 cases, at both in 1. BD was abnormal in 37 subjects (20.8 %), with concomitant abnormal PRV in 2, abnormal IPSS in 10 cases, abnormal IPSS and BD in 1. IPSS was a parts per thousand yen 9 in 43 subjects (24.1 %). At least one test was abnormal in 76 patients (42.7 %): 1 in 57 patients (32.0 %), 2 in 17 (9.5 %), and 3 tests in 2 (1.1 %). Patients with at least one abnormal urinary variable, compared to patients without urinary abnormalities, had a more frequent pyramidal involvement (69.5 vs. 16.8 %, chi (2) = 48.6, p < 0.00001), a more frequent occurrence of EDSS a parts per thousand yen2 (83.1 vs. 23.5 %, chi (2) = 56.9, p < 0.00001), and a longer disease duration (15.7 +/- A 7.3 vs. 9.1 +/- A 7.1, t = 5.7, p < 0.00001). Asymptomatic LUTS were frequent but none of the tests used permitted to better identify asymptomatic patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据