Reassessing the Role of Urodynamics after Cerebrovascular Accident

Abstract

Background and Purpose: To determine whether there is a gender difference in the need for urodynamics in the evaluation of urinary incontinence after cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Materials and Methods: We studied 72 consecutive post-CVA patients with new onset urinary incontinence documented by the patients or the persons who looked after them. Patients were evaluated between 4 and 6 weeks after their CVA and all had negative urine cultures and a postvoid residual urine determination. Exclusion criteria included narrow angle glaucoma, postvoid residual urine greater than 100 cm³ and radiographic evidence for a brainstem infarct. This left 30 male (mean age 65) and 30 female (mean age 67) patients evaluable. Patients were empirically started on anticholinergic medications and timed voids for 4 weeks after which cytoscopy and cystometry were performed. Results: 28/30 females (93%) reported subjective improvement in their continence with conservative measures. 1 (3%) was found to have a urethral diverticulum, and 1 (3%) had uninhibited detrusor contractions that did not improve with medications. In the male group, 20/30 (67%) reported subjective improvement, 5 (17%) developed elevated postvoid residual urine volumes, 3 (10%) were diagnosed with urethral strictures, 1 (3%) had a bladder neck contracture, and 1 (3%) had transitional cell carcinoma in situ in the bladder. Conclusion: In the patient with new onset urinary incontinence in the initial period after CVA, an empiric trial of anticholinergic medications and timed voiding may be warranted in a select population of female patients without urodynamic testing or cystoscopy. This conservative approach may not be appropriate in males because of their increased likelihood of having secondary urologic conditions.

Urodynamic Evaluation of Urinary Disturbances following Traumatic Brain Injury

“…Although many studies have been published on the bladder behavior in stroke patients [5][6][7] , very few have been done in head injury cases. The magnitude of the problem appears to be the same, at least logically, in both stroke and head injury cases, as most of these patients require catheterization.…”