| Literature DB >> 18026681 |
G Ghoniem1, E Stanford, K Kenton, C Achtari, R Goldberg, T Mascarenhas, M Parekh, K Tamussino, S Tosson, G Lose, E Petri.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2007 PMID: 18026681 PMCID: PMC2096636 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-007-0495-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
Results after testing for urinary incontinence
| Test | Result |
|---|---|
| No leakage with cough stress test | Negative |
| Instantaneous leakage with cough stress test | Positive |
| Leakage in spurts on cough stress test | Positive (mixed) |
| Delayed leakage with flow | Detrusor overactivity |
| Leakage with empty bladder, supine position | ISD [ |
Stamey’s incontinence scoring system
| Grade 0 | No incontinence |
| Grade 1 | Incontinence with coughing or straining |
| Grade 2 | Incontinence with change in position or walking |
| Grade 3 | Total incontinence at all times |
Severity index for urinary incontinence in women [47, 48]
| Parameter | Finding | Points |
|---|---|---|
| How often is urine leakage experienced? | Never | 0 |
| Less than once a month | 1 | |
| 1 to several times a month | 2 | |
| 1 to several times a week | 3 | |
| Every day and/or night | 4 | |
| How much urine lost each time? | A few drops | 1 |
| A little | 2 | |
| More | 3 | |
| Severity index = (points for frequency) × (points for amount) | ||
| 1–2 = slight, 3–6 = moderate, 8–9 = severe, 12 = very severe |
Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I)
| Check the one number that best describes how your urinary tract condition is now, compared with how it was before you began treatment | |
|---|---|
| Rating | Description |
| 1 | Very much better |
| 2 | Much better |
| 3 | A little better |
| 4 | No change |
| 5 | A little worse |
| 6 | Much worse |
| 7 | Very much worse |
Potential complications: sling urethropexy
| Ascending retropubic approach | Risks: bladder, intestinal and vascular injury |
| Descending retropubic approach | Risks: bladder perforation, vascular injury |
| Mixed retropubic approach | Risks: same for ascending and descending approaches |
| Transobturator approach | Risks: bladder perforation, urethral injury, vaginal perforation |
| Fascial slings | Risks: pain, hematoma, infection |
| Bone anchor slings (213) | Risks: pain, osteitis |
| Silicone-coated polyester suburethral sling | Risks: vaginal extrusion of the sling material (214) |
| Initial clinical evaluation | Urodynamic testing |
| Voiding diary | Neurophysiological testing |
| Stress testing | Surgical complications |
| Grading of SUI and Pad testing | Cost effectiveness |
| Quality of life measures | |
| Urethral mobility | |
| Patient satisfaction | |
| Prolapse assessment |
| Parameter | Clinical practice | Research |
| Clinical evaluation | R | R |
| Voiding diary | O | R |
| Cough stress test | R | R |
| Empty supine stress test | O | O |
| Incontinence severity | O | R |
| Visual analog score | N | N |
| Stamey’s grading | O | O |
| Severity measures (e.g., Sandvik index, UDI-6) | O | R |
| Pad test (1 and 24 h) | O | R |
| Quality of life measures | O | R |
| General health questionnaires | N | O |
| Incontinence-specific questionnaires | O | R |
| Sexual dysfunction | O | R |
| Urethral/ bladder neck mobility | R | R |
| Q-tip | O | O |
| Perineal ultrasound | O | O |
| Prolapse anatomy | R | R |
| POP-Q | R | R |
| POP-Q staging or Baden-Walker half-way grading | R | R |
| Patient’s satisfaction and assessment | R | R |
| Expectations | O | R |
| Goals | O | R |
| Postoperative symptoms | R | R |
| Urodynamic testing | R | R |
| Post-void residual urine volume | R | R |
| Uroflow | O | R |
| Cystometry | R | R |
| Pressure flow | O | O |
| Urethral pressure profile | O | O |
| Leak pressure (abdominal and/or detrusor) | O | O |
| Electrodiagnostic testing | N | N |
| Reporting complications | R | R |
| Cost analysis | N | O |
R Recommended, O optional, N not recommended