This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of bladder hydrodistension in the treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS), depending on the duration of the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised 71 women aged 51.6+/-8.3 years with a 5.2+/-2.3 year history of IC/BPS. All patients underwent bladder hydrodistension (BH). Depending on the duration of BH, patients were divided into 4 groups. The distension time in group 1 (n=10), group 2 (n=20), group 3 (n=20) and group 4 (n=21) was 1 min, 2 min, 4 min and 6 min, respectively. The treatment effectiveness was assessed 1 month after BH by subjective assessment of patients, Pelvic Pain and Urgency/Frequency (PUF) Patient Symptom Scale questionnaire, a visual analog pain scale (VAS), and voiding diaries. RESULTS: At one month after BH, positive effect was observed in 32 (45.1%) patients. In groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 the treatment was effective in 20%, 55%, 45% and 47.6% of patients, respectively. Clinical effectiveness of BH with distension time of 1 min was significantly lower than that of 2, 4, and 6 min. At the same time, we did not find significant differences in the effectiveness of this procedure with distension time of 2, 4 and 6 min. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that BH is an effective treatment in patients suffering from IC/BPS. At the same time, they show that the distension time of 2 min. is optimal from the point of view of clinical effectiveness, since the longer duration of the procedure is excessive, and the shorter time is insufficient.
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of bladder hydrodistension in the treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS), depending on the duration of the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised 71 women aged 51.6+/-8.3 years with a 5.2+/-2.3 year history of IC/BPS. All patients underwent bladder hydrodistension (BH). Depending on the duration of BH, patients were divided into 4 groups. The distension time in group 1 (n=10), group 2 (n=20), group 3 (n=20) and group 4 (n=21) was 1 min, 2 min, 4 min and 6 min, respectively. The treatment effectiveness was assessed 1 month after BH by subjective assessment of patients, Pelvic Pain and Urgency/Frequency (PUF) Patient Symptom Scale questionnaire, a visual analog pain scale (VAS), and voiding diaries. RESULTS: At one month after BH, positive effect was observed in 32 (45.1%) patients. In groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 the treatment was effective in 20%, 55%, 45% and 47.6% of patients, respectively. Clinical effectiveness of BH with distension time of 1 min was significantly lower than that of 2, 4, and 6 min. At the same time, we did not find significant differences in the effectiveness of this procedure with distension time of 2, 4 and 6 min. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that BH is an effective treatment in patients suffering from IC/BPS. At the same time, they show that the distension time of 2 min. is optimal from the point of view of clinical effectiveness, since the longer duration of the procedure is excessive, and the shorter time is insufficient.