4.6 Article

Botulinum A toxin and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia:: A double-blind lidocaine-controlled study in 13 patients with spinal cord disease

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 56-62

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00209-9

关键词

botulinum toxin; detrusor sphincter dyssynergia; spinal cord lesions; neurogenic bladder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the efficacy and tolerance of botulinum A toxin (BTx) versus lidocaine (L), applied in the external urethral sphincter with a single transperineal injection in order to treat detrusor sphincter dyssynergia (DSD) in spinal cord injured patients. Methods: Thirteen patients (1 F, 12 M) suffering from chronic urinary retention due to DSD were randomised to receive one transperineal injection of 100 IU BTx Botoxdegrees in 4 ml of 9% saline (botulinum group, (BG)) or 4 ml of 0.5% L (lidocaine group, (LG)). The main criteria of efficacy was post-voiding residual urine volume (PRUV), assessed three times daily on day one (D1), D7 and D30 after each injection. Other criteria were micturition diary, satisfaction score (SS), maximal urethral pressure (MUP), maximum detrusor pressure (DP) and type of DSD, recorded on DO and D30. Results: In the BG, there was a significant decrease in PRUV (D7: -141.4 ml (p<0.03); D30: -159.4 ml (p<0.01)), in MUP (D30: -32 cm H2O, P<0.04) whereas no significant improvement was shown in the LG. SS was higher in BG than LG (p<0.02). DSD improved in BG whereas it remained unchanged in LG. All LG patients also received one injection of BTx on D30. They still presented improvement in PRUV and MUP 1 month later (D30'). Tolerance appeared satisfactory in both groups. Conclusions: The preliminary results of this initial randomised double-blind study clearly demonstrated the superiority of BTx compared to L in improving clinical symptoms and urethral hypertonia associated with DSD in spinal cord injured patients. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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