| Literature DB >> 26446765 |
Jong-hyun Yun1, Jae Heon Kim2, Suyeon Park3, Changho Lee4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized that patient position, supine or recline, and bladder filling status, empty or full, could change the Q-tip test result. This study evaluated the effect of the patient position and bladder filling status on the Q-tip angle for urethral hypermobility (UH).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26446765 PMCID: PMC4597398 DOI: 10.1186/s12894-015-0096-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Urol ISSN: 1471-2490 Impact factor: 2.264
Basic characteristics of the patients (n = 63)
| All patients ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (range), years | 61.6 ± 11.1 (36–81) | ||
| Clinical Diagnosis, n | |||
| Mixed urinary incontinence | 32/63 (50.8 %) | ||
| Stress urinary incontinence | 27/63 (42.9 %) | ||
| Urgency urinary incontinence | 4/63 (6.3 %) | ||
| Hypermobile Urethra (Q tip ≥30) | |||
| Provocation test positive, n | 32/58 (55.2 %) | 8/32 (25.0 %) | |
| Provocation test negative, n | 26/58 (44.8 %) | 3/26 (11.5 %) | |
| MUS patients ( | |||
| Age (range), years | 61.6 ± 11.0 (46–81) | ||
| Clinical Diagnosis, n | |||
| Mixed urinary incontinence | 12/25 (48.0 %) | ||
| Stress urinary incontinence | 13/25 (52.0 %) | ||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.6 ± 2.9 | ||
| Post-hysterectomy status | 3/25 (12.0 %) | ||
| Smoking | 0/25 (0.0 %) | ||
| Hypermobile Urethra (Q tip ≥30) | |||
| VLPP ≤60 | 8/24 (33.3 %) | 50.0 % (4/8) | |
| VLPP 61–89 | 10/24 (41.7 %) | 40.0 % (4/10) | |
| VLPP ≥90 | 6/24 (25.0 %) | 16.7 % (1/6) |
Comparison of mean Q-tip angles and urethral hypermobility (UH) rates in relation to patient position
| Position | Average Q-tip |
| Q-tip ≥30° | Odds ratio | 95 % CI (Confidence interval) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empty | Supine | 14.1 ± 9.1 | 0.001 | 11.1 % (7/63) | 7.03a | 1.01–48.94 | 0.05 |
| Reclining | 16.4 ± 11.1 | 19.1 % (12/63) | |||||
| Filling | Supine | 15.4 ± 9.7 | 0.771 | 15.0 % (9/60) | |||
| Reclining | 15.9 ± 11.0 | 15.3 % (9/59) |
aReclining position had higher odds of a positive Q-tip angle, p-value†; by paired t-test, p-value††; by generalized linear mixed model
Fig. 1Comparison of the urethral hypermobility rate in relation to patient position. Positive urethral hypermobility was defined as a Q-tip angle ≥30°
Comparison of mean Q-tip angles and urethral hypermobility (UH) rates in relation to bladder filling status
| Position | Average Q-tip |
| Q-tip ≥ 30° | Odds Ratio | 95 % CI (Confidence Interval) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supine | Empty | 14.1 ± 9.1 | 0.049 | 11.1 % (7/63) | 1.45a | 0.25–8.36 | 0.67 |
| Filling | 15.4 ± 9.7 | 15.0 % (9/60) | |||||
| Reclining | Empty | 16.4 ± 11.1 | 0.361 | 19.1 % (12/63) | |||
| Filling | 15.9 ± 11.0 | 14.3 % (9/63) |
aBladder filling status had higher odds of a positive Q-tip angle, p-value†; by paired t-test, p-value††; by generalized linear mixed model
Fig. 2Comparison of the urethral hypermobility rate in relation to bladder filling status. Positive urethral hypermobility was defined as a Q-tip angle ≥30°