Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp 1395–1398 | Cite as

Detrusor overactivity does not predict outcome of sacral neuromodulation test stimulation

  • Mary M. T. SouthEmail author
  • Audrey A. Romero
  • Margaret G. Jamison
  • George D. Webster
  • Cindy L. Amundsen
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine if urodynamic findings in patients with urge incontinence predicts response to sacral neuromodulation test stimulation. One hundred four patients with refractory urinary urge incontinence who had undergone sacral neuromodulation test stimulation were retrospectively reviewed. Pre- and post-test stimulation incontinence parameters and pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contraction strength was documented. Urodynamics were reviewed on all patients, and the presence or absence of detrusor overactivity (DO) was noted. Patients were then divided into two groups: responders to the test stimulation and non-responders. A positive response was considered to be a ≥50% improvement in the number of incontinent episodes per day (IE/day) and/or pad weight with test stimulation. Of the 104 patients evaluated, 64% (N = 67) responded to the test stimulation, while 36% (N = 37) were non-responders. The mean age was 59.7 and 67.0 among responders and non-responders (p = .01). There was a significant difference in the number of IE/day between non-responders and responders (p = .02). There was no relationship found between the presence or absence of DO and the likelihood for test stimulation success, patient demographics or pre test stimulation incontinence variables. Our study provides no statistically significant evidence that the presence or absence of DO on urodynamics predicts a response to sacral neuromodulation test stimulation. An important finding, however, was that patients without demonstrable DO on urodynamics may still have a positive response to sacral neuromodulation.

Keywords

Detrusor overactivity Urodynamics Sacral neuromodulation Refractory urge urinary incontinence 

References

  1. 1.
    Bosch JL, Groen J (2000) Sacral nerve neuromodulation in the treatment of patients with refractory motor urge incontinence: long-term results of a prospective longitudinal study. J Urol 163:1219–1222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koldewijn EL, Rosier PF, Meuleman EJ, Koster AM, Debruyne FM, van Kerrebroeck PE (1994) Predictors of success with neuromodulation in lower urinary tract dysfunction: results of trial stimulation in 100 patients. J Urol 152:2071–2075PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scheepens WA, van Koeveringe GA, de Bie RA, Weil EH, van Kerrebroeck PE (2003) Urodynamic results of sacral neuromodulation correlate with subjective improvement in patients with an overactive bladder. Eur Urol 43:282–287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Radley SC, Rosario DJ, Chapple CR, Farkas AG (2001) Conventional and ambulatory urodynamic findings in women with symptoms suggestive of bladder overactivity. J Urol 166:2253–2258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sand PK, Hill RC, Ostergard DR (1988) Incontinence history as a predictor of detrusor stability. Obstet Gynecol 71:257–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Flisser AJ, Walmsley K, Blaivas JG (2003) Urodynamic classification of patients with symptoms of overactive bladder. J Urol 169:529–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt R, Tanagho E (1991) Clinical applications of neurostimulation. In: Krane RJ, Siroky MB (eds) Clinical neuro-urology. Little Brown, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Janknegt RA, Weil EH, Eerdmans PH (1997) Improving neuromodulation technique for refractory voiding dysfunctions: two-stage implant. Urology 49:358–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al (2003) The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Urology 61:37–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amundsen CL, Romero AA, Jamison MG, Webster GD (2005) Sacral neuromodulation for intractable urge incontinence: are there factors associated with cure? Urology 66:746–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amundsen CL, Webster GD (2002) Sacral neuromodulation in an older, urge-incontinent population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:1462–1465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sherman ND, Jamison MG, Webster GD, Amundsen CL (2005) Sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of refractory urinary urge incontinence after stress incontinence surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:2083–2087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan (2004) The relationship between urinary symptom questionnaires and urodynamic diagnoses: an analysis of two methods of questionnaire administration. BJOG 111:468–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary M. T. South
    • 1
    Email author
  • Audrey A. Romero
    • 1
  • Margaret G. Jamison
    • 1
  • George D. Webster
    • 2
  • Cindy L. Amundsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of UrogynecologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Division of UrologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations