A Petrikovets1, I E Veizi2, A Hijaz1, S T Mahajan1, F Daneshgari3, C A T Buffington4, P McCabe4, T Chelimsky5. 1. Departments of Urology and Gynecology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 2. Department of Pain Medicine, Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, OH. 3. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. 4. University of California, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Department of Neurology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. Electronic address: tchelimsky@mcw.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether voiding parameters differ in patients with the common overlapping pelvic pain disorders, interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS), and myofascial pelvic pain (MPP). METHODS: Uroflow and voiding diary assessed voiding phenotypes in this prospective cohort study (ICEPAC) of women comparing IC/BPS, IC/BPS +MPP, MPP, and healthy control (HC) subjects. RESULTS: In 36 HC, 24 IC/BPS, 37 IC/BPS + MPP, and 14 MPP subjects, the voiding diary measurements indicate lower voided volumes in IC/BPS and IC/BPS + MPP groups (185 ± 24 mL, 169 ± 20 mL, respectively) compared to HC and MPP groups (294 ± 24 mL, 226 ± 36 mL, respectively; P <.05, P <.05), as well as higher 24-hour voiding frequency (11.6 ± 0.8 and 11 ± 1.2 voids/24 hours, respectively; HC 7.1 ± 0.5 voids/24 hours; P <.05, P <.05; MPP group 9 ± 1.2 voids/24 hours; P <.05, P <.05). Uroflow showed higher HC average flow rate (12.87 ± 0.92) compared to IC/BPS, IC/BPS+MPP, and MPP (8.31 ± 1.20, 8.02 ± 0.80, 8.17 ± 1.38, respectively; P <.01, P <.01, P <.05) and peak flow rate (27.0 ± 1.83) and IC/BPS, IC/BPS+MPP and MPP (16.20 ± 2.2, 17.33 ± 1.64, 17.21 ± 2.69 respectively; P <.01, P <.01, P <.05). CONCLUSION: This quantitative evaluation of voiding diary and uroflow metrics reveals distinct voiding phenotypes, which can aid in the diagnosis of chronic pelvic pain syndromes. Patients with IC/BPS had more pain with a full bladder despite similar overall pain scores. Peak and average flow rates do not provide any differentiating power between IC/BPS and MPP patients. A longer time to peak flow may favor MPP though this finding needs confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether voiding parameters differ in patients with the common overlapping pelvic pain disorders, interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS), and myofascial pelvic pain (MPP). METHODS:Uroflow and voiding diary assessed voiding phenotypes in this prospective cohort study (ICEPAC) of women comparing IC/BPS, IC/BPS +MPP, MPP, and healthy control (HC) subjects. RESULTS: In 36 HC, 24 IC/BPS, 37 IC/BPS + MPP, and 14 MPP subjects, the voiding diary measurements indicate lower voided volumes in IC/BPS and IC/BPS + MPP groups (185 ± 24 mL, 169 ± 20 mL, respectively) compared to HC and MPP groups (294 ± 24 mL, 226 ± 36 mL, respectively; P <.05, P <.05), as well as higher 24-hour voiding frequency (11.6 ± 0.8 and 11 ± 1.2 voids/24 hours, respectively; HC 7.1 ± 0.5 voids/24 hours; P <.05, P <.05; MPP group 9 ± 1.2 voids/24 hours; P <.05, P <.05). Uroflow showed higher HC average flow rate (12.87 ± 0.92) compared to IC/BPS, IC/BPS+MPP, and MPP (8.31 ± 1.20, 8.02 ± 0.80, 8.17 ± 1.38, respectively; P <.01, P <.01, P <.05) and peak flow rate (27.0 ± 1.83) and IC/BPS, IC/BPS+MPP and MPP (16.20 ± 2.2, 17.33 ± 1.64, 17.21 ± 2.69 respectively; P <.01, P <.01, P <.05). CONCLUSION: This quantitative evaluation of voiding diary and uroflow metrics reveals distinct voiding phenotypes, which can aid in the diagnosis of chronic pelvic pain syndromes. Patients with IC/BPS had more pain with a full bladder despite similar overall pain scores. Peak and average flow rates do not provide any differentiating power between IC/BPS and MPPpatients. A longer time to peak flow may favor MPP though this finding needs confirmation.
Authors: Ji Sung Shim; Sung Gu Kang; Jae Young Park; Jae Hyun Bae; Seok Ho Kang; Hong Seok Park; Du Geon Moon; Jun Cheon; Jeong Gu Lee; Je Jong Kim; Mi Mi Oh Journal: Urology Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Mary P FitzGerald; Rodney U Anderson; Jeannette Potts; Christopher K Payne; Kenneth M Peters; J Quentin Clemens; Rhonda Kotarinos; Laura Fraser; Annemarie Cosby; Carole Fortman; Cynthia Neville; Suzanne Badillo; Lisa Odabachian; Andrea Sanfield; Betsy O'Dougherty; Rick Halle-Podell; Liyi Cen; Shannon Chuai; J Richard Landis; Keith Mickelberg; Ted Barrell; John W Kusek; Leroy M Nyberg Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joop P van de Merwe; Jørgen Nordling; Pierre Bouchelouche; Kirsten Bouchelouche; Mauro Cervigni; L Kurosch Daha; Suzy Elneil; Magnus Fall; Gero Hohlbrugger; Paul Irwin; Svend Mortensen; Arndt van Ophoven; John L Osborne; Ralph Peeker; Benedikte Richter; Claus Riedl; Jukka Sairanen; Martina Tinzl; Jean-Jacques Wyndaele Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Siobhan Sutcliffe; Graham A Colditz; Ratna Pakpahan; Catherine S Bradley; Melody S Goodman; Gerald L Andriole; H Henry Lai Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2013-11-23 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Tatiana V D Sanses; Gisela Chelimsky; Noel P McCabe; Denniz Zolnoun; Jeffrey Janata; Robert Elston; C A Tony Buffington; Pippa Simpson; Liyun Zhang; Thomas Chelimsky Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Lizath M Aguiniga; Timothy J Searl; Afrida Rahman-Enyart; Ryan E Yaggie; Wenbin Yang; Anthony J Schaeffer; David J Klumpp Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2020-01-31
Authors: Patricia J Mwesigwa; Nicholas J Jackson; Ashley T Caron; Falisha Kanji; James E Ackerman; Jessica R Webb; Victoria C S Scott; Karyn S Eilber; David M Underhill; Jennifer T Anger; A Lenore Ackerman Journal: Front Pain Res (Lausanne) Date: 2021-11-05