Urinary Incontinence

  • Jacques Corcos
Chapter

Abstract

Urinary incontinence is a benign disease; however, its impact on the patient’s quality of life (QoL) is tremendous. The incontinent patient is, most of the time, embarrassed and ashamed, even avoids speaking to her family and friends about her problem. She prefers to isolate herself from some activities that she knows trigger incontinence. She is fearful of being ostracized if discovered.

Keywords

Urinary Incontinence Stress Urinary Incontinence Urethral Pressure Urethral Diverticulum Vaginal Surgery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Subcommittee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;32:167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schick E, Jolivet-Tremblay M, Dupont C, Bertrand PE, Tessier J. Frequency-volume chart: the minimum number of days required to obtain reliable results. Neurology Urodyn 2003;22(2):92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnick C. Frequency volume chart. In: Cardozo L, et al., eds. Urogynaecology. London: Churchill Livingstone, 1997:105–107.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shumaker SA, Wyman JF, Uebersax JS, McClish D, Fantl JA. Health-related quality of life measures for women with urinary incontinence: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Qual Life Res 1994;3:291–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl AJ. Short forms 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lubeck DP, Prebil LA, Peebles P, Brown JS. A health related quality of life measure for use in patient with urge urinary incontinence: a validation study. Qual Life Res 1999;8(4):337–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S. A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:1373–1379.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P. ICI-Q: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23:322–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hajebrahimi S, Corcos J, Lemieux MC. International consultation on incontinence questionnaire short form: comparison of physician versus patient completion and immediate and delayed self-administration. Urology 2004;63(6):1076–1078.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diokno AC, Dimaculangan RR, Lim EU, Steinert BW. Office based criteria for predicting type II stress incontinence without further evaluation studies. J Urol 1999;161(4):1263–1267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corcos J, Beaulieu S, Donovan J, Naughton M, Gotoh M. Symptom Quality of Life Assessment Committee of the First International Consultation on Incontinence. Quality of life assessment in men and women with urinary incontinence. J Urol 2002;168(3):896–905.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wyman JG, Harkins SW, Taylor JG, Fantl AJ. Psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence in women. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70(3):378–381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Bavendam TG, Martin ML, Buesching DP. Quality of life of persons with urinary incontinence: development of a new measure. Urology 1996;47(1):67–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stothers L. Reliability, validity, and gender differences in the quality of life index of the SEAPI-QMM incontinence classification system. Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23(3):223–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Derogatis LR. The psychosocial adjustment to illness scale (PAIS). J Psychosom Res 1986;30(1):77–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rust J, Golombok S. The Griss: a psychometric instrument for the assessment of sexual dysfunction. Arch Sex Behav 1986;15(2):157–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Costa P, Perrouin-Verbe B, Colvez A, et al. Quality of life in spinal cord injury patients with urinary difficulties. Eur Urol 2001;39:107–113.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Catanzoro M. Urinary bladder dysfunction as a remedial disability in multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1982;63:472–475.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caputo RM, Benson JT. The Q-tip test and urethrovesical junction mobility. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82(6):892–896.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Handa VL, Jensen JK, Ostergard DR. The effect of patient position on proximal urethral mobility. Obstet Gynecol 1995;86(2):273–276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pollak JT, Jenkins P, Kopka SL, Davida GW. Effect of genital prolapse on assessment of bladder neck mobility: the Q-tip test. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101(4):662–665.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schussler B, Peschers U. Standardisation of terminology of female genital prolapse according to the new ICS criteria: inter-examiner reproducibility. Neurourol Urodyn 1995;14:437–438.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haylen BT, Ashby D, Sutherst JR, Frazer MI, West CR. Maximum and average urine flow rates in normal male and female populations-the Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 1989;64:30–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abrams PH, Martin S, Griffiths DJ. The measurement and interpretation of urethral pressure obtained by the method of Brown and Wickham. Br J Urol 1978;50:30–38.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hilton P. The urethral pressure profile at rest: an analysis of variance. Neurourol Urogyn 1982;1:303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Plante P, Susset J. Studies of female urethral pressure profile. Part I. The normal urethral pressure profile. J Urol 1980;123:64–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lose G. Simultaneous recording of pressure and crosssectional area in the female urethra: a study of urethral closure function in healthy and stress incontinent women. Neurourol Urodyn 1992;11:55–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thind P, Bagi P, Lose G, Mortensen S. Characterization of pressure changes in the lower urinary tract during pressure recording equipment. Neurourol Urodyn 1994;13:219–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL, Andersen JT. The standardization of terminology of the lower urinary tract. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1988;114:5–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bump RD, Copeland WE, Hurt WG, Fantl JA. Dynamic urethral pressure/profilometry pressure transmission ratio determinations in stress-incontinent and stress-continent. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;159:749–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bump RC, Elser DM, McClish DK. Valsalva leak point pressures in adult women with genuine stress incontinence; reproducibility effect of catheter caliber and correlations with passive urethral pressure profilometry. Neurourol Urodyn 1993;12:307–308.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Papa Petros PE, Ulmsten U. Urethral pressure increase on effort originates from within the urethra and continence from musculovaginal closure. Neurourol Urodyn 1995;14:337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swift SE, Rust PF, Ostergard DR. Intrasubject variability of pressure-transmission ratio in patients with genuine stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 1996;7:312–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Richardson DR, Ramahi A. Reproducibility of pressure transmission ratios in stress incontinent women. Neurourol Urodyn 1993;12:123–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lose G, Thind P, Colstrup H. The value of pressure transmission ratio in the diagnosis of stress incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 1990;9:323–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosenzweig BA, Bhatia NN, Nelson AL. Dynamic urethral pressure profilometry pressure transmission ratio; what do the numbers really mean. Obstet Gynecol 1991;777:586–590.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McGuire EJ, Fitzpatrick CC, Wan J, et al. Clinical assessment of urethral sphincter function. J Urol 1993;150:1452–1454.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Iselin CE, Webster GD. Office management of female urinary incontinence. Urol Clin North Am 1998;25:625–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Janez J, Rudi Z, Mihelic M, Vrtacnik P, Vodusek DB, Plevnik S. Ambulatory distal urethral electric conductance testing coupled to a modified pad test. Neurourol Urodyn 1993;12:324–326.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sutherst JR, Brown MC, Richmond D. Analysis of the pattern of urine loss in women with incontinence as measured by weighing perineal pads. Br J Urol 1986;58:273–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Richmond DH, Sutherst RJ, Brown MC. Quantification of urine loss by weighing perineal pads. Observations on the exercise regime. Br J Urol 1987;59:224–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mayne CJ, Hilton P. Short pad test: method and comparison with 1-hour test. Neurourol Urodyn 1988;7:443–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miller J, Ashton-Miller JA, Delancey JOL. The quantitative paper towel test for measuring stress related urine loss. In: Proceedings of the International Continence Society, Yokohama, 1997:43–44.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Griffiths DJ, McCracken PN, Harrison GM. Incontinence in the elderly; objective demonstration and quantitative assessment. Br J Urol 1991;67:467–471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Griffiths DJ, McCracken PN, Harrison GM, Gormley EA. Characteristics of urinary incontinence in elderly patients studied by 24-hour monitoring and urodynamic testing. Age Aging 1992;21:195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A, eds. Incontinence (2nd International Consultation on Incontinence), 2nd ed. Plymouth, England: Health Publications, 2002:275–283.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schick E, Jolivet-Tremblay M. Detection and quantification of urine loss: the pad-weighing test. In: Corcos J, Schick E, eds.The Urinary Sphincter: New York: Marcel Dekker, 2001:275–283.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lienemann A, Sprenber D, Janssen U, Grosch E, Pellengahr C, Anthuber C. Assessment of pelvic organ descent by use of functional cine-MRI: which reference line should be used? Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23(1):33–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fielding JR. MR imaging of pelvic floor relaxation. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41(4):747–756.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Singh K, Jakab M, Reid WM, Berger LA, Hoyte L. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging assessment of levator ani morphologic features in different grades of prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188(4):910–915.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wilson PD, Mason MV, Herbison GP, Sutherst JR. Evaluation of the home pad test for quantifying incontinence. Br J Urol 1989;64:155–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Corcos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations