4.6 Article

Botulinum-A toxin injections into the detrusor muscle decrease nerve growth factor bladder tissue levels in patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 175, 期 6, 页码 2341-2344

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00258-8

关键词

spinal cord injuries; bladder; botulinum toxin type A; nerve growth factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We investigated the effects of BTX-A on visceral afferent nerve transmission by measuring bladder tissue NGF levels in patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity before and after intravesical treatment with BTX-A. We also compared the bladder tissue NGF content with clinical and urodynamic data. Materials and Methods: A total of 23 patients underwent clinical evaluation and urodynamics with detection of the UDC threshold, maximum pressure and maximum cystometric capacity before, and at the 1 and 3-month followups. Endoscopic bladder Wall biopsies were also obtained at the same time points. NGF levels were measured in tissue homogenate by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Promega, Madison, Wisconsin). Results: At 1 and 3 months mean catheterization and incontinent episodes were significantly decreased (p < 0.05 and < 0.001, respectively). On urodynamics we detected a significant increase in the UDC threshold and maximum cystometric capacity, and a significant decrease in UDC maximum pressure at the 1 and 3-month followups compared to baseline (each p < 0.001). At the same time points we detected a significant decrease in NGF bladder tissue content (each p < 0.02). Conclusions: BTX-A intravesical treatment induces a state of NGF deprivation in bladder tissue that persists at least up to 4 months. As caused by BTX-A, the decrease in acetylcholine release at the presynaptic level may induce a decrease in detrusor contractility and in NGF production by the detrusor muscle. Alternatively BTX-A can decrease the bladder level of neurotransmitters that normally modulate NGF production and release.

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

4.6
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