Stress and Urgency Urinary Incontinence: Clinical-Urodynamic Correlation and Rehabilitation Management in Daily Clinical Practice

Abstract

Abstract(a) To correlate the clinical with the urodynamic diagnosis in a series of patients with UUI (urgency urinary incontinence) and SUI (stress urinary incontinence); (b) establish age, clinical and urodynamic differences; and (c) demonstrate the effectiveness of individualized rehabilitation treatment based on the clinical-urodynamic diagnosis in patients with SUI and UUI in the daily clinical practice of a third-level rehabilitation service. Retrospective study of 60 patients with SUI and UUI. Urodynamic study: (a) free flowmetry; (b) filling cystomanometry; (c) pressure-flow study. Outcome variables: daytime (DUF) and nighttime (NUF) urinary frequency, strength of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) measured by manometry (maximum and mean pressure), and use of absorbents/day. Rehabilitation treatment: (a) pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT); (b) biofeedback (BFB), transcutaneous neuromodulation of the posterior tibial nerve (TTNM). Age, clinical, and urodynamic differences have been observed between patients with UUI versus SUI. UUI is more frequent in older patients (UUI 67.3 ± 10.19 years vs SUI 58.6 ± 8.54 years), p = 0.0028. Patients with UUI, when compared with patients with SUI, present more episodes of DUF (7.7 ± 5.1 vs 5.5 ± 3.99) and NUF (2.51 ± 1.67 vs 1.46 ± 1.42). Patients with SUI use more absorbents/day than patients with UUI (2.7 ± 1.53 vs 1.37 ± 1.5), p = 0.0243. The urodynamic study (UDS) confirmed the clinical diagnosis in UUI in 64.7%, while in SUI, it was only confirmed in 35.1%. In the urodynamic analysis (free flowmetry), patients with UUI have smaller bladders than patients with SUI (voiding volume in UUI 275.8 ± 178.95 vs 411.03 ± 203.62 in SUI), p = 0.083. The maximum flow (Qmax) is higher in patients with SUI compared to UUI (19.6 ± 7.07 vs 16.06 ± 8.54), p = 0.0836. In filling cystomanometry, the bladders of patients with UUI are smaller than those with SUI (bladder capacity UUI 266.3 ± 52.76 vs 308.6 ± 49.72 ml in SUI), p = 0.023. In SUI, the BFB/PFMT significantly improved DUF, NUF, PFM pressure, and absorbent use. In UUI, the BFB plus TTNM improved DUF, NUF, and the maximum and mean PFM pressure with statistical difference, while the use of absorbents decreased with a tendency to significance. There are age, clinical, manometric, and urodynamic differences in patients with UUI when compared with patients with SUI. UUI occurs in older patients; they present a greater number of daytime and nocturnal urinary frequency episodes and use fewer absorbents than patients with SUI. Patients with UUI evacuate a smaller urine volume have a lower peak flow (in flowmetry) and a lower bladder capacity (in cystomanometry) than patients with SUI. The rehabilitation treatment proposed in daily clinical practice (PFMT/BFB with or without TTNM improves SUI and UUI). In this study, the UDS has shown a greater clinical-urodynamic correlation in UUI than in SUI.