How do different tests evaluate sensation in the lower urinary tract?

Laet, Kevin De; Wachter, Stefan De; Meel, Tom Van; Wyndaele, Jean Jacques

doi:10.3109/00365591003709476

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Out of 80 studies, 61 exclusively applied CPTs [6,7,13–71], but four reported incomplete or no CPT results [14,32,61,64] (Table S2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients with neurological diseases or lesions such as diabetic neuropathy or spinal cord injury generally demonstrated higher CPTs compared to controls [7,26,28,29,30,31,32,78].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…perineal sensation with light digital touch, filling sensations during UDIs) towards a more comprehensive neurophysiological evaluation of the whole LUT, i.e. bladder and urethra [29,64,66].…”

Section: Value Of This Review and Future Potential Of Lutesamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All reported AEs were self-limited and did not require medical therapy. In 14 studies (17.5%), oral antibiotics were given post measurement to prevent urinary tract infections [19,20,21,27,28,29,34,35,36,40,44,57,62,63,64].…”

Section: Safety Of Lutesamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To summarize the current literature on lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment (LUTESA), with regard to current perception thresholds (CPTs) and sensory evoked potentials (SEPs), and to discuss the applied methods in terms of technical aspects, confounding factors, and potential for lower urinary tract (LUT) diagnostics. MethodsThe review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline (PubMed), Embase and Scopus were searched on 13 October 2020. Meta-analyses were performed and methodological qualities of the included studies were defined by assessing risk of bias (RoB) as well as confounding. ResultsAfter screening 9925 articles, 80 studies (five randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 75 non-RCTs) were included, comprising a total of 3732 patients and 692 healthy subjects (HS). Of these studies, 61 investigated CPTs exclusively and 19 reported on SEPs, with or without corresponding CPTs. The recording of LUTCPTs and SEPs was shown to represent a safe and reliable assessment of LUT afferent nerve function in HS and patients. LUTESA demonstrated significant differences in LUT sensitivity between HS and neurological patients, as well as after interventions such as pelvic surgery or drug treatments. Pooled analyses showed that several stimulation variables (e.g. stimulation frequency, location) as well as patient characteristics might affect the main outcome measures of LUTESA (CPTs, SEP latencies, peak-to-peak amplitudes, responder rate). RoB and confounding was high in most studies. ConclusionsPreliminary data show that CPT and SEP recordings are valuable tools to more objectively assess LUT afferent nerve function. LUTESA complements already established diagnostics such as urodynamics, allowing a more comprehensive patient evaluation. The high RoB and confounding rate was related to inconsistency and inaccuracy in reporting rather than the technique itself. LUTESA standardization and well-designed RCTs are crucial to implement LUTESA as a clinical assessment tool.

show abstract

“…Out of 80 studies, 61 exclusively applied CPTs [6,7,13–71], but four reported incomplete or no CPT results [14,32,61,64] (Table S2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients with neurological diseases or lesions such as diabetic neuropathy or spinal cord injury generally demonstrated higher CPTs compared to controls [7,26,28,29,30,31,32,78].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Value Of This Review and Future Potential Of Lutesamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Safety Of Lutesamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…La sensation de mauvaise vidange vésicale ne serait pas forcément en rapport avec le volume résiduel. De Laet et al ont récem-ment rapporté que chez les patients présentant des troubles du bas appareil urinaire, le seuil de perception électrique pouvait être modifié indépendamment de la sensation de réplétion vésicale [26]. Naoemova et al ont comparé l'éva-luation des sensations au remplissage vésicale pendant un examen urodynamique et les données du calendrier mictionnel sur trois jours en indiquant les différents besoins.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Peut-on évaluer le débit urinaire maximal et le résidu postmictionnel par l’échelle visuelle analogique (EVA) ? Une étude prospective chez 31 patients

Chaabane¹,

Gamé

Malavaud

et al. 2010

Pelv Perineol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectif : Le but de cette étude était de comparer les résultats de la débitmétrie et de la mesure du résidu postmictionnel (RPM) par échographie sus-pubienne au ressenti du patient évalué à l'aide d'une échelle visuelle analogique (EVA). Matériel et méthodes : Une étude prospective a été menée auprès de 31 patients (26 hommes et cinq femmes) âgés en moyenne de 63,74 ± 12,37 ans ayant consulté en urologie pour des troubles urinaires du bas appareil. Tous les patients ont eu une débitmétrie ainsi qu'une mesure par échographie du RPM. Les données étudiées étaient : l'âge, la présence d'une maladie neurologique, les antécédents chirurgicaux, le débit maximum (Q max ), le volume uriné, le RPM mesuré par échographie, les données de l'EVA concernant la force du jet urinaire (EVA Q max ) et le RPM (EVArpm). Résultats : Les résultats de l'EVA du jet urinaire maximal n'étaient pas statistiquement corrélés au débit maximum (Q max /EVA Q max : r2 = 0,005993 ; IC 95 % : -0,2911 à 0,4259 ; p = 0,6843). Une sensation de mauvaise vidange vésicale était exprimée chez dix parmi les 31 patients. Le résultat de l'autoévaluation par EVA était statistiquement corrélé au volume du RPM (r2 = 0,1485 ; IC 95 % : 0,02184 à 0,6589 ; p = 0,039). Aucune corrélation n'a été trouvée entre la dysurie (Q max < 15 ml/s) et la sensation de mauvaise vidange vésicale. Il n'y avait pas de lien statistique entre l'autoévaluation de la force du jet urinaire et celle de la vidange vésicale. Conclusion : L'intensité du trouble mictionnel tel qu'il est vécu par le patient est très différente de la réalité urodynamique. Une évaluation plus fine des symptômes, combinée éventuellement à des moyens de mesures non invasifs, pourrait améliorer la prise en charge de ces patients. Pour citer cette revue : Pelvi-Périnéologie 6 (2011). Mots clés Échelle visuelle analogique (EVA) · Débitmétrie · Résidu postmictionnelAbstract Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare uroflowmetry and ultrasound postvoid residue measurement results of data collected with patient feelings recorded through a visual analogue scale (VAS). Material and methods: Thirty-one patients, 26 men and five women, mean age 63.74 ± 12.37 years, consulting in urology for lower urinary tract symptoms were enrolled in a prospective study. All patients had an uroflowmetry and an ultrasound postvoid residue (PVR) measurement. Selfassessment by VAS of the strength of urinary stream and the feeling of complete bladder voiding were performed in all patients. Data collected were age, presence of a neurological disease, previous surgery, maximum flow rate (Q max ), voided volume, postvoid residue, VAS results of the strength of the urinary stream (VAS Q max ), and postvoid residue (VASrpm). Results: Maximum flow rate VAS results were not correlated to the maximum flow rate (Q max /VAS Q max : r2 = 0.005993; W. Chaabane (*) Service de chirurgie générale et d'urologie, centre hospitalier Montauban, 100, rue Léon-Cladel,

show abstract

Urethral Sensation

Wyndaele

2022

Sensation in the Pelvic Region

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do different tests evaluate sensation in the lower urinary tract?

Cited by 4 publications

References 25 publications

Lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Peut-on évaluer le débit urinaire maximal et le résidu postmictionnel par l’échelle visuelle analogique (EVA) ? Une étude prospective chez 31 patients

Urethral Sensation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About