4.4 Article

Can neurologic examination predict type of detrusor sphincter-dyssynergia in patients with spinal cord injury?

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 243-246

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.09.024

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. To assess the correlations in males with spinal cord injury (SCI) between the neurologic status and type of detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia (DSD) observed during urodynamic examinations and to evaluate the change in the DSD pattern over time. Methods. A total of 105 male patients with chronic SCI were neurologically examined according to the American Spinal Cord Injury Association protocol and underwent video-urodynamic examinations. DSD observed during urodynamic studies was classified according to the Blaivas classification. To assess the stability of the DSD over time, patients who had been recently injured were clinically and urodynamically controlled after 1 year and thereafter. Results. A statistically significant positive correlation was found between the DSD type and completeness or incompleteness of the SCI lesion. Patients with an incomplete sensory and motor SCI lesion presented with DSD type 1 compared with patients with complete sensory and motor SCI lesion, who had DSD type 2 to type 3. A correlation was also found between the American Spinal Cord Injury Association scores and the DSD type. No correlation was found between the DSD type and lesion level. At medium to long-term follow-up, a significant change was found in the DSD type. Conclusions. The neurologic status and DSD type after SCI showed significant correlations. Therefore, neurologic examination and determination of the DSD type might be helpful to complete the neurourologic diagnosis and to assist in confirming completeness of the lesion after acute injury. Because DSD seems to become aggravated with time, regular urodynamic follow-up examinations are mandatory in patients with DSD to adjust their treatment, if necessary. (C) 2005 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