Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The correlation between historical, clinical and urodynamic parameters in patients suffering from genuine stress urinary incontinence: Can a severity grading be considered?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the possibility of establishing a genuine stress urinary incontinence severity grading from the combination of historical clinical and urodynamic parameters. Four hundred and eighty-three patients underwent complete investigation, including a questionnaire, clinical evaluation and multichannel urodynamic testing. They were then divided into four groups on the basis of the presence of only a SUI history (group 1,n=65); positive urine loss with a ‘continent’ stress urethral pressure profile (SUPP) (group 2,n=61); positive urine loss with an ‘incontinent’ SUPP (group 3,n=231); or no urine loss with an ‘incontinent' SUPP (group 4,n=126). Compared to group 1 the severity of incontinence was significantly greater in groups 2 and 3. and maximal urethral closure pressure and pressure transmission ratio were significantly reduced in group 3 and 4. Otherwise, history, clinical and urodynamic parameters showed no significant differences between the four groups. It was concluded that a scoring severity can be established when considering all the parameters of a woman suffering from GSI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Diokno AC, Brock BM, Brown MB et al. Prevalence of urinary incontinence and other urological symptoms in the non institutionalised elderly.J Urol 1986;136:1022–1025.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hording U, Pedersen K, Sidenmius K et al. Urinary incontinence in 45-year-old women.Scand J Urol Nephrol 1986;20:183–187.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. JC. Stress incontinence in nulliparous women.J Report Med 1969;2:96–99

    Google Scholar 

  4. Summit RL, Bent AE, Ostergard DR. The pathophysiology of genuine stress incontinence.Int Urogynecol J 1990;1:12–18

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, McClish D, Fantl JA. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence. The urogenital distress inventory and the incontinence impact questionnaire.Quality Life Res 1994;3:291–306.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wyman JF, Harkins SW, Choi SC, Taylor JR, Fantl JA. Psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence in women.Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:378–381.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker S, McClish DK, Fantl JA. Short form to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory.Neurourol Urodyn 1995;14:131–139

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ingelmann-Sundberg A. Urinary incontinence in women, excluding fistulae.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1951;31:266–269

    Google Scholar 

  9. Crystle CD, Charme LS, Copeland WE. Q-Tip test in female urinary incontinence.Obstet Gynecol 1971;38:313–315

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Montz FJ, Stanton SL. Q-Tip test in female urinary incontinence.Obstet Gynecol 1986;67:258–260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL, Andersen JT. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function recommended by the International Continence Society. Int Urogynecol J 1990;1:45–48

    Google Scholar 

  12. MacGuire EJ, Adult female urology. In Blaivas JG, Elbadawi A, McGuire EJ, Yalla SV, eds Neurourology and urodynamics, principles and pratice. New York: MacMillan 1988;264–273

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eberhard J. Die Integration de urodynamik im diagnostik und therapiekonzept der stressinkontinenz der Frau. Habilitationsschrift, Zürich 1988

    Google Scholar 

  14. Green TH. Urinary stress incontinence: differential diagnosis, pathophysiology and management.Am J Obstet Gynecol 1975;122:368–372

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Blaivas JG. Pathophysiology of lower urinary tract dysfunction.Urol Clin North Am 1985;12:215–224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Blaivas JG. Pathophysiology of lower urinary tract dysfunction.Clin Obstet Gynecol 1985;12:295–309

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cardozo LD, Stanton SL. Genuine, stress incontinence and detrusor instability — a review of 200 patients,Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980;87:184–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Benson JT. Gynecologic and urodynamic evaluation of women with urinary incontinence.Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:691–694

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Summit RL, Stovall TG, Bent AE, Ostergard DR. Urinary incontinence: correlation of history and brief office evaluation with multichannel urodynamic testing.Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1835–1840

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fischer-Rasmussen W, Hansen RI, Stage P. Predictive values of diagnostic tests in the evaluation of female stress urinary incontinence.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1986;65:291–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hilton P, Stanton SL. Urethral pressure measurement by microtransducer: the results in symptom free women and in those with genuine stress incontinence.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983;90:919–933

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urodynamic Unit, Gynecology-Obstetrics Department, CHUV, Route du Bugnon, 1000, Lausanne, Switzerland

    S. Meyer, P. de Grandi & G. Caccia

Authors
  1. S. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. de Grandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Caccia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Editorial Comment: This article emphasizes that GSI is a complex phenomenon with multiple factors playing a role in the production of urine loss. Due to this multifactorial etiology there has been great difficulty in developing a grading system that can take all factors into account. Certainly there are other factors that we know nothing about at the present time that also play a role. This is an excellent attempt to categorize, patients into four groups based on a combination of historical, clinical and urodynamic findings. Further simplification may be necessary to allow its routine use in the clinical setting.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, S., de Grandi, P. & Caccia, G. The correlation between historical, clinical and urodynamic parameters in patients suffering from genuine stress urinary incontinence: Can a severity grading be considered?. Int Urogynecol J 6, 337–342 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01892739

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01892739

Key words

Search

Navigation