Literature DB >> 23727311

Pad count is a poor measure of the severity of urinary incontinence.

Johnson F Tsui1, Milan B Shah, James M Weinberger, Mazyar Ghanaat, Jeffrey P Weiss, Rajveer S Purohit, Jerry G Blaivas.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We analyzed the correlation between pad use, as determined by objective pad count, and the severity of urinary incontinence, as measured by pad weight.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of consecutive incontinent patients who wore pads on a daily basis and were instructed to complete a 24-hour pad test. They were told to use the usual pads, change them as usual and place each in a separate plastic bag the day before the scheduled appointment. All pads were weighed and total urine loss was calculated by subtracting dry pad weight from wet pad weight, assuming that a 1 gm weight increase was equivalent to 1 ml of urine loss. The number of pads was correlated to pad weight using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient due to the nonparametric nature of the data.
RESULTS: The 116 patients included 51 men 39 to 89 years old (mean age 66) and 65 women 27 to 95 years old (mean age 72). When comparing the number of pads used to the gm of urine lost, the Spearman ρ was 0.26 (p=0.005) in the total cohort, and 0.40 and 0.26 (each p<0.05) in males and females, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: There was little correlation between the number of pads used and the severity of urinary incontinence (r=0.26). These data suggest that pad count should not be used as an objective measure of incontinence severity. Instead, pad weight on a 24-hour pad test should be used.
Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  female; lower urinary tract symptoms; male; urinary bladder; urinary incontinence

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23727311     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.055

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  8 in total

Review 1.  Comprehensive approach for post-prostatectomy incontinence in the era of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Haga; Ruriko Takinami; Ryo Tanji; Akifumi Onagi; Kanako Matsuoka; Tomoyuki Koguchi; Hidenori Akaihata; Junya Hata; Soichiro Ogawa; Masao Kataoka; Yuichi Sato; Kei Ishibashi; Ken Aikawa; Yoshiyuki Kojima
Journal:  Fukushima J Med Sci       Date:  2017-07-26

2.  Evaluation of Incontinence after Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Using the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Short Form and Noting the Number of Safety Pads Needed by Japanese Patients.

Authors:  Katsuya Hikita; Masashi Honda; Bunya Kawamoto; Panagiota Tsounapi; Kuniyasu Muraoka; Takehiro Sejima; Atsushi Takenaka
Journal:  Yonago Acta Med       Date:  2017-03-09       Impact factor: 1.641

Review 3.  A review of lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Anand V Badri; Rajveer S Purohit; Jason Skenazy; Jeffrey P Weiss; Jerry G Blaivas
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Integrative review on the non-invasive management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men following treatments for pelvic malignancies.

Authors:  S Faithfull; A Lemanska; P Aslet; N Bhatt; J Coe; L Drudge-Coates; M Feneley; R Glynn-Jones; M Kirby; S Langley; T McNicholas; J Newman; C C Smith; A Sahai; E Trueman; H Payne
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2015-08-20       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Urinary Incontinence-85: An Expanded Prostate Cancer Composite (EPIC) Score Cutoff Value for Urinary Incontinence Determined Using Long-term Functional Data by Repeated Prospective EPIC-Score Self-assessment After Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Karolin Bossert; Venkat M Ramakrishnan; Burkhardt Seifert; Kurt Lehmann; Lukas J Hefermehl
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2017-12-31       Impact factor: 2.835

Review 6.  To sling or not to sling? Impact of intraoperative sling procedures during radical prostatectomy on postoperative continence outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Eunice Lim; Scott Leslie; Ruban Thanigasalam; Daniel Steffens
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2021-01-17

Review 7.  Narrative review of male urethral sling for post-prostatectomy stress incontinence: sling type, patient selection, and clinical applications.

Authors:  Raevti Bole; Kevin J Hebert; Harrison C Gottlich; Elizabeth Bearrick; Tobias S Kohler; Boyd R Viers
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

8.  Assessing variability of the 24-hour pad weight test in men with post-prostatectomy incontinence.

Authors:  Rena D Malik; Joshua A Cohn; Pauline A Fedunok; Doreen E Chung; Gregory T Bales
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.