Urethral sensation following reconstructive pelvic surgery

Abernethy, Melinda G.; Davis, Carley; Löwenstein, Lior; Brubaker, Linda; Kenton, Kimberly

doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2409-7

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

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%

“…Thirteen studies compared LUTCPTs of pelvic surgery patients to (preoperative) controls. Most studies reported decreased LUT sensitivity after pelvic surgery [24,30,47,48,49,50,51,82], however, some studies indicated location-specific differences [7,20,52,53].…”

Section: Pelvic/abdominal Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The skepticism is supported by a study lacking to demonstrate a significant difference in 5 Hz CPTs before and after resiniferatoxin instillation into the bladder [46], although resiniferatoxin should desensitize afferent C-fibres [46,97]. Furthermore, CPT studies persistently reported CPT values after 2000 Hz stimulation of the bladder mucosa, which would indicate the presence of A-beta fibres [16,19,20,27,31,35,39,42,43,47,48,65]. However, A-beta fibres have never been described in the LUT [3].…”

Section: Rctsmentioning

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

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%