4.2 Article

Long-term effect of conservative treatment versus low threshold endoscopic desobstruction on urine incontinence and urgency in boys with persistent overactive bladder symptoms: A cohort study

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1924-1929

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.23214

关键词

boys; endoscopic treatment; long-term effect; overactive bladder; urethral obstruction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsTo assess the long-term effects of two treatment strategies (low threshold endoscopic desobstruction vs. conservative treatment) on urinary incontinence (UI) and urgency-frequency in boys. MethodsBoys with persistent overactive bladder symptoms treated in two tertiary referral centers between 2006 and 2009 were included. Treatment strategy in center 1 was urethrocystoscopy (UCS) and in case of obstruction urethral desobstruction and in center 2 conservative. The primary outcome was time to being dry during daytime, secondary outcomes were being dry both day and night and presence of urgency-frequency, using the provisional International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires Children's Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) questionnaire. ResultsMedian age at start of treatment was 8.0 (IQR 6.4-9.4) years in center 1 and 8.4 (IQR 6.0-10.1) years in center 2. At baseline daytime incontinence was present in 100/104 children (96%, center 1) and 37/44 (84%, center 2). In center 1, UCS was performed in 98 (93%) boys, with desobstruction in 93 (88%), while in center 2 these numbers were 16 (36%), and 5 (11%). There were no differences between groups after a mean follow-up of 5 years concerning dryness at daytime (HR 0.86, 0.56-1.30), dryness day and night (HR 0.72, 0.51-1.14), and presence of urgency-frequency (HR 0.67, 0.38-1.25). ConclusionsThe benefit of a strategy including low-threshold UCS and endoscopic desobstruction in boys with urge incontinence and suspected infravesical obstruction to prevent LUTS and incontinence on the longer term could not be confirmed.

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

4.2
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