Assessing Variability of the 24-hour Pad Weight Test in Men with Post-prostatectomy Incontinence

Overview

Journal Int Braz J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2016 Jun 4

PMID 27256187

Citations 7

Authors

Rena D Malik

Joshua A Cohn

Pauline A Fedunok

Doreen E Chung

Gregory T Bales

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Decision-making regarding surgery for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is challenging. The 24-hour pad weight test is commonly used to objectively quantify PPI. However, pad weight may vary based upon activity level. We aimed to quantify variability in pad weights based upon patient-reported activity.

Materials And Methods: 25 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were prospectively enrolled. All patients demonstrated clinical stress urinary incontinence without clinical urgency urinary incontinence. On three consecutive alternating days, patients submitted 24-hour pad weights along with a short survey documenting activity level and number of pads used.

Results: Pad weights collected across the three days were well correlated to the individual (ICC 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.93), p<0.001). The mean difference between the minimum pad weight leakage and maximum leakage per patient was 133.4g (95% CI 80.4-186.5). The mean increase in 24-hour leakage for a one-point increase in self-reported activity level was 118.0g (95% CI 74.3-161.7, p<0.001). Pad weights also varied significantly when self-reported activity levels did not differ (mean difference 51.2g (95% CI 30.3-72.1), p<0.001).

Conclusions: 24-hour pad weight leakage may vary significantly on different days of collection. This variation is more pronounced with changes in activity level. Taking into account patient activity level may enhance the predictive value of pad weight testing.

Citing Articles

Artificial Urinary Sphincters for Moderate Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence: Current Research and Proposed Approach.

Johnson A, Mossack S, Tsambarlis P Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(18).

PMID: 37760394 PMC: 10526785. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184424.

A Matched-Pair Analysis after Robotic and Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy: A New Definition of Continence and the Impact of Different Surgical Techniques.

dAltilia N, Mancini V, Falagario U, Martino L, Di Nauta M, Calo B Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(18).

PMID: 36139511 PMC: 9496957. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14184350.

Risk Factors for Revision After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation in Male Patients With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A 10-Year Retrospective Study.

Manfredi C, Krishnappa P, Fernandez-Pascual E, Garcia Criado E, Rengifo D, Vazquez Alba D Int Neurourol J. 2022; 26(2):161-168.

PMID: 35255666 PMC: 9260330. DOI: 10.5213/inj.2142122.061.

Does trunk muscle training with an oscillating rod improve urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy? A prospective randomized controlled trial.

Heydenreich M, Puta C, Gabriel H, Dietze A, Wright P, Zermann D Clin Rehabil. 2019; 34(3):320-333.

PMID: 31858823 PMC: 7029439. DOI: 10.1177/0269215519893096.

Proposal of a new way to evaluate the external sphincter function prior male sling surgey.

Moser D, DAncona C, Voris B, Lahan D, Jani K, Henry G Int Braz J Urol. 2019; 45(2):354-360.

PMID: 30735337 PMC: 6541136. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0146.

References

Karantanis E, Allen W, Stevermuer T, Simons A, OSullivan R, Moore K . The repeatability of the 24-hour pad test. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005; 16(1):63-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-004-1199-8. View

Fischer M, Huckabay C, Nitti V . The male perineal sling: assessment and prediction of outcome. J Urol. 2007; 177(4):1414-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.061. View

Collado Serra A, Resel Folkersma L, Dominguez-Escrig J, Gomez-Ferrer A, Rubio-Briones J, Solsona Narbon E . AdVance/AdVance XP transobturator male slings: preoperative degree of incontinence as predictor of surgical outcome. Urology. 2013; 81(5):1034-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.007. View

Krhut J, Zachoval R, Smith P, Rosier P, Valansky L, Martan A . Pad weight testing in the evaluation of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2013; 33(5):507-10. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22436. View

Zimmern P, Kobashi K, Lemack G . Outcome measure for stress urinary incontinence treatment (OMIT): results of two society of urodynamics and female urology (SUFU) surveys. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010; 29(5):715-8. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20840. View

Kumar A, Litt E, Ballert K, Nitti V . Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence--what do patients choose?. J Urol. 2009; 181(3):1231-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.022. View

Bauer R, Gozzi C, Hubner W, Nitti V, Novara G, Peterson A . Contemporary management of postprostatectomy incontinence. Eur Urol. 2011; 59(6):985-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.020. View

Dylewski D, Jamison M, Borawski K, Sherman N, Amundsen C, Webster G . A statistical comparison of pad numbers versus pad weights in the quantification of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006; 26(1):3-7. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20352. View

Kowalik C, DeLong J, Mourtzinos A . The advance transobturator male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: subjective and objective outcomes with 3 years follow up. Neurourol Urodyn. 2013; 34(3):251-4. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22539. View

10.

Painter V, Karantanis E, Moore K . Does patient activity level affect 24-hr pad test results in stress-incontinent women?. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011; 31(1):143-7. DOI: 10.1002/nau.21169. View

11.

Penson D, McLerran D, Feng Z, Li L, Albertsen P, Gilliland F . 5-year urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Urol. 2005; 173(5):1701-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000154637.38262.3a. View

12.

Tsui J, Shah M, Weinberger J, Ghanaat M, Weiss J, Purohit R . Pad count is a poor measure of the severity of urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2013; 190(5):1787-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.055. View

13.

Cornu J, Sebe P, Ciofu C, Peyrat L, Cussenot O, Haab F . Mid-term evaluation of the transobturator male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: focus on prognostic factors. BJU Int. 2010; 108(2):236-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09765.x. View

14.

Walter S, Eliasziw M, Donner A . Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Stat Med. 1998; 17(1):101-10. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::aid-sim727>3.0.co;2-e. View

15.

Groutz A, Blaivas J, Chaikin D, Resnick N, Engleman K, Anzalone D . Noninvasive outcome measures of urinary incontinence and lower urinary tract symptoms: a multicenter study of micturition diary and pad tests. J Urol. 2000; 164(3 Pt 1):698-701. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-200009010-00019. View

16.

Rehder P, Haab F, Cornu J, Gozzi C, Bauer R . Treatment of postprostatectomy male urinary incontinence with the transobturator retroluminal repositioning sling suspension: 3-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(1):140-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.038. View

17.

Nitti V, Mourtzinos A, Brucker B . Correlation of patient perception of pad use with objective degree of incontinence measured by pad test in men with post-prostatectomy incontinence: the SUFU Pad Test Study. J Urol. 2014; 192(3):836-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.031. View

18.

Wilt T, Brawer M, Jones K, Barry M, Aronson W, Fox S . Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(3):203-13. PMC: 3429335. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113162. View

19.

Stanford J, Feng Z, Hamilton A, Gilliland F, Stephenson R, Eley J . Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000; 283(3):354-60. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.3.354. View

20.

Rasmussen A, Mouritsen L, Dalgaard A, Frimodt-Moller C . Twenty-four hour pad weighing test: reproducibility and dependency of activity level and fluid intake. Neurourol Urodyn. 1994; 13(3):261-5. DOI: 10.1002/1520-6777(1994)13:3<261::aid-nau1930130308>3.0.co;2-t. View