INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Aims of this study were to compare the ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness (BWT) in women with different urodynamic diagnosis and to correlate BWT to the different urodynamic findings of detrusor overactivity (DO). METHODS: Two hundred forty seven women with urinary symptoms have been prospectively enrolled. Urodynamics and transvaginal ultrasound BWT were performed. Patients were divided into four urodynamic subgroups. BWT of women with DO was compared with the BWT of any other subgroup. RESULTS: Women with DO had a BWT value significantly higher (p < 0.0001). A cut-off of 6.5 mm for BWT had a positive predictive value of 100% for all DO. We use ROC curves to analyze the BWT for urgency urinary incontinence (AUC 0.645 95% CI 0.57-0.72) and the BWT for "pure DO" (AUC 0.702 95% CI 0.64-0.76) and for "all DO" (AUC 0.704 95% CI 0.64-0.77) vs other urodynamic diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound BWT showed a highly significant association with DO. However, the performance of this test cannot currently replace urodynamic testing.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Aims of this study were to compare the ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness (BWT) in women with different urodynamic diagnosis and to correlate BWT to the different urodynamic findings of detrusor overactivity (DO). METHODS: Two hundred forty seven women with urinary symptoms have been prospectively enrolled. Urodynamics and transvaginal ultrasound BWT were performed. Patients were divided into four urodynamic subgroups. BWT of women with DO was compared with the BWT of any other subgroup. RESULTS:Women with DO had a BWT value significantly higher (p < 0.0001). A cut-off of 6.5 mm for BWT had a positive predictive value of 100% for all DO. We use ROC curves to analyze the BWT for urgency urinary incontinence (AUC 0.645 95% CI 0.57-0.72) and the BWT for "pure DO" (AUC 0.702 95% CI 0.64-0.76) and for "all DO" (AUC 0.704 95% CI 0.64-0.77) vs other urodynamic diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound BWT showed a highly significant association with DO. However, the performance of this test cannot currently replace urodynamic testing.
Authors: Werner Schäfer; Paul Abrams; Limin Liao; Anders Mattiasson; Francesco Pesce; Anders Spangberg; Arthur M Sterling; Norman R Zinner; Philip van Kerrebroeck Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894