Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Weak VLPP and MUCP correlation and their relationship with objective and subjective measures of severity of urinary incontinence

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

Abstract

The aims of the present study were to find the correlation between Valsalva leak-point pressure (VLPP) and cough leak-point pressure (CLPP) and to determine whether the water perfusion maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) correlates with VLPP. Seventy-nine women with previously untreated stress urinary incontinence were recruited to participate in a clinical study. Their mean age was 56.4 years, mean BMI was 27.8, and mean parity was 1.9. The mean values of VLPP and CLPP were 50.4 and 52.9 cm H2O, respectively. We did not find statistically significant differences in the mean values of VLPP and CLPP. The mean value of MUCP at rest was 44.2 cm H2O and the mean value of MUCP during maximal Valsalva maneuver was 37.2 cm H2O; with 500 ml of sterile saline in the bladder the difference between them is statistically significant. In the study group (n=79), 56 patients (77%) had low VLPP (≤60 cm H2O), 21 patients (30%) had low MUCP (≤30 cm H2O), and 8 patients had MUCP≤20 cm H2O (all at rest). Of the 56 patients with low VLPP, 16 also had a low MUCP (≤30 cm H2O). This study mainly compares two parameters—the MUCP and the VLPP. Based on our results we can conclude that there is no correlation between these parameters. MUCP measures urethral resistance at rest and VLPP measures urethral resistance during increased intra-abdominal pressure (Valsalva maneuver).

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21(2):167–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DeLancey JOL (1994) Structural support of the urethra as it relates to stress urinary incontinence: the hammock hypothesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:1713–1720

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Martan A, Masata J, Svabik K, Drahoradova P, Halaska M, Voigt R (2003) Ultrasound study of the lower urinary tract in continent women. In: Abstract ICS, conference proceedings, Florence

  4. McGuire EJ, Woodside JR, Borden TA, Weiss RM (1981) Prognostic value of urodynamic testing in myelodysplastic patients. J Urol 126:205–209

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McGuire EJ, Lytton B, Pepe V, Kohorn EI (1976) Stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 47:255–264

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sand P, Bowen LW, Panganiban R, Ostergard DR (1987) The low pressure urethra as a factor in failed retropubic urethropexy. Obstet Gynecol 69:399–402

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lose G, Brostrom S (2002) Low-pressure urethra in women: what does it mean and what can it be used for? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13:215–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. American Urogynecology Society (1995) Intrinsic sphincter deficiency: a clinical opinion. AUGS Q Rep 13:2

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pajoncini C, Costantini E, Guercini F, Porena M (2002) Intrinsic sphincter deficiency: do the maximum urethral closure pressure and the Valsalva leak-point pressure identify different pathogenic mechanisms? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13:30–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bump RC, Elser DM, Theofrastous JP, McClish DK, the Continence Program for Women Research Group (1995) Valsalva leak point pressures in women with genuine stress incontinence: reproducibility, effect of catheter caliber, and measurements of urethral resistance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 13:551–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Bump RC (1996) The effect of vesical volume on Valsalva leak point pressures in women with genuine stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 87:711–714

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Swift SE, Utrie JW (1996) The need for standardization of the Valsalva leak-point pressure. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7:227–230

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jakobsen H, Veden P, Anderson JT (1987) Objective assessment of urinary incontinence: an evaluation of three different pad-weighing test. Neurourol Urodyn 6:325–330

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dietz HP, McKnoulty L, Clarke B (1999) Translabial color doppler for imaging in urogynecology: a preliminary report. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 14(2):144–147

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dietz HP, Clarke B (2001) Translabial color Doppler urodynamics. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12(5):304–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mašata J, Martan A, Halaška M, Otčenášek M, Voigt R (2001) Detection of Valsalva leak point pressure with colour Doppler—new method for routine use. Neurourol Urodyn 20:494–496

    Google Scholar 

  17. Raz S, Erikson DR (1992) SEAPI-QMN incontinence classification system. Neurourol Urodyn 11:187

    Google Scholar 

  18. Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL, Andersen JT (1988) The International Continence Society committee on standardization of terminology: the standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1145:5–19

    Google Scholar 

  19. McGuire EJ, Woodside JR (1981) Diagnostic advantages of fluoroscopic monitoring during urodynamic evaluation. J Urol 125:830–834

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bump RC, Coates KW, Cundiff GW, Haris RL, Weidner AC (1997) Diagnosis intrinsic sphincter deficiency: comparing urethral closure pressure, urethral axis, and Valsalva leak point pressures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:303–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zmrhal J, Horčička L, Lochman P (2001) Dynamische Tests des urethralen Verschlussmechanismus und Beckenboden. Zentralbl Gynakol 123:158–161

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nager CW, Schulz JA, Stanton SL, Monga A (2001) Correlation of urethral closure pressure, leak-point pressure and incontinence severity measures. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:395–400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sultana CJ (1995) Urethral closure pressure and leak-point pressure in incontinent women. Obstet Gynecol 86:839–842

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Swift SE, Ostergard DR (1995) A comparison of stress leak point pressure and maximum urethral closure pressure in patients with genuine stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 85:704–708

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Theofrastous JP, Bump RC, Elser DM, Wyman JF, McClish DK (1995) Correlation of urodynamic measures of urethral resistance with clinical measure of incontinence severity in women with pure genuine stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173:407–414

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nitti VW, Combs AJ (1996) Correlation of Valsalva leak point pressure with subjective degree of stress urinary incontinence in women. J Urol 155:281–285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Feldner PC Jr, Bezerra LR, de Castro RA, Sartori MG, Baracat EC, de Lima GR, Girao MJ (2004) Correlation between valsalva leak point pressure and maximal urethral closure pressure in women with stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:194–197

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University, Apolinářská 18, 128 00, Prague 2, Czech Republic

    A. Martan, J. Mašata, K. Švabík & P. Drahorádová

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Frauenklinik, Schwerin Medical School, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

    E. Petri

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Frauenklinik, Robert-Koch-Krankenhaus, Apolda, Germany

    R. Voigt

  4. EuroMISE centre of the Charles University and Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

    M. Pavlíková & J. Hlásenská

Authors
  1. A. Martan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Mašata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Petri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Švabík
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Drahorádová
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Voigt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Pavlíková
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. Hlásenská
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Martan.

Additional information

This work was supported by the Grant Agency of the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic, grant NH 7378-3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martan, A., Mašata, J., Petri, E. et al. Weak VLPP and MUCP correlation and their relationship with objective and subjective measures of severity of urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 18, 267–271 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0140-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0140-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation