4.4 Article

Evaluation of Sexual Dysfunction, Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Quality of Life in Men With Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome and the Efficacy of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 121, 期 -, 页码 86-92

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To determine the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), nocturia, sexual dysfunction (SD), and the status of quality of life (QOL) in men with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and after continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment, the changes in the presence of these conditions and the improvements of QOL. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this study, 126 patients with suspicious diagnosis of OSAS were enrolled prospectively. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Male LUTS (ICIQ-MLUTS), Overactive Bladder Symptoms Score (OABS-V8), Nocturia Quality of Life (Nqol), voiding diary, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-15) questionnaire, and Short form 36 (SF-36) to assess the presence of SD, LUTS, nocturia, and the status of QOL were filled by patients before polysomnography. The same forms were filled in the third month of treatment by the patients directed to CPAP treatment due to moderate and severe OSAS. RESULTS There were significant differences in IPSS, IIEF, OABSS, ICIQ-MLUTS, Nqol and SF-36 scores, frequency of nocturia, and night-time urine volume according to OSAS severity. Among the factors affecting the QOL, there was strong correlation between ED and SF-36 sub-domains compared with the other factors. After CPAP treatment significant changes and improvements on these symptoms and QOL were observed. CONCLUSION In patient with OSAS, the severity of SD and LUTS and their effect on QOL differ according to the severity of OSAS and CPAP treatment improves the negative impact of these conditions on QOL. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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