Mehmet Resit Asoglu1, Selcuk Selcuk2, Cetin Cam2, Ebru Cogendez2, Ates Karateke2. 1. The University of Texas-Houston MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: mrasoglu@mdanderson.org. 2. Zeynep Kamil Training and Education Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the effects of urinary incontinence subtypes on women's quality of life (including sexual life) and psychosocial state. STUDY DESIGN: The patients, who applied to our clinic from March 2011 to August 2011, were identified and stratified into three groups: those with stress incontinence proved urodynamically (USI), those with urge incontinence (UI), and those with mixed incontinence urge incontinence (UI) proved by urodynamic and clinic evaluation. Scores on the Beck anxiety inventory (BAI), pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12), urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6), and incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ-7) were compared between the urinary incontinence subtypes. RESULTS: According to urodynamic and clinical examination of 111 women with urinary incontinence, 59 (53%) had USI, 35 (32%) had UI, and 17 (15%) had MI. BAI-scores significantly differed between the USI and UI groups (p=0.030) and between the USI and MI groups (p=0.011) not between the UI and MI groups (p=0.597). UDI-6 scores did not significantly differ between the three groups (p=0.845). IIQ-7 scores significantly differed between the USI and MI groups (p=0.003) and between the UI and MI groups (p=0.006) but not between the USI and UI groups. Patients with USI had significantly lower PISQ-12 scores than those with UI (p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: These differences in the effects of incontinence subtypes should be kept in mind in the evaluation of patients with urinary incontinence. Psychiatric assessment may improve the management of incontinence in women, especially UI and MI. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the effects of urinary incontinence subtypes on women's quality of life (including sexual life) and psychosocial state. STUDY DESIGN: The patients, who applied to our clinic from March 2011 to August 2011, were identified and stratified into three groups: those with stress incontinence proved urodynamically (USI), those with urge incontinence (UI), and those with mixed incontinence urge incontinence (UI) proved by urodynamic and clinic evaluation. Scores on the Beck anxiety inventory (BAI), pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12), urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6), and incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ-7) were compared between the urinary incontinence subtypes. RESULTS: According to urodynamic and clinical examination of 111 women with urinary incontinence, 59 (53%) had USI, 35 (32%) had UI, and 17 (15%) had MI. BAI-scores significantly differed between the USI and UI groups (p=0.030) and between the USI and MI groups (p=0.011) not between the UI and MI groups (p=0.597). UDI-6 scores did not significantly differ between the three groups (p=0.845). IIQ-7 scores significantly differed between the USI and MI groups (p=0.003) and between the UI and MI groups (p=0.006) but not between the USI and UI groups. Patients with USI had significantly lower PISQ-12 scores than those with UI (p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: These differences in the effects of incontinence subtypes should be kept in mind in the evaluation of patients with urinary incontinence. Psychiatric assessment may improve the management of incontinence in women, especially UI and MI. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Authors: Vatche A Minassian; Kaitlin A Hagan; Elisabeth Erekson; Andrea M Austin; Donald Carmichael; Julie P W Bynum; Francine Grodstein Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Anne P Cameron; Abigail R Smith; H Henry Lai; Catherine S Bradley; Alice B Liu; Robert M Merion; Brenda W Gillespie; Cindy L Amundsen; David Cella; James W Griffith; Jonathan B Wiseman; Karl J Kreder; Kimberly S Kenton; Margaret E Helmuth; Matthew O Fraser; J Quentin Clemens; Ziya Kirkali; John W Kusek; Nazema Y Siddiqui Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2018-04-10 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Gabriela Gonzalez; Kristina Vaculik; Carine Khalil; Yuliya Zektser; Corey Arnold; Christopher V Almario; Brennan M R Spiegel; Jennifer T Anger Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 7.600