Comparison of Perineal Sonographically Measured and Functional Urodynamic Urethral Length in Female Urinary Incontinence

Overview

Journal Biomed Res Int

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Biomedical Engineering
Biotechnology
General Medicine

Date 2016 Nov 8

PMID 27819004

Citations 3

Authors

Laila Najjari

Nadine Janetzki

Lieven Kennes

Elmar Stickeler

Julia Serno

Julia Behrendt

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

. To detect the anatomical insufficiency of the urethra and to propose perineal ultrasound as a useful, noninvasive tool for the evaluation of incontinence, we compared the anatomical length of the urethra with the urodynamic functional urethral length. We also compared the urethral length between continent and incontinent females. . 149 female patients were enrolled and divided into four groups (stress, urge, or mixed incontinence; control). Sonographically measured urethral length (SUL) and urodynamic functional urethral length (FUL) were analyzed statistically. Standardized and internationally validated incontinence questionnaire ICIQ-SF results were compared between each patient group. . Perineal SUL was significantly longer in incontinent compared to continent patients ( < 0.0001). Pairwise comparison of each incontinent type (stress, urge, or mixed incontinence) with the control group showed also a significant difference ( < 0.05). FUL was significantly shorter in incontinent patients than in the control group ( = 0.0112). But pairwise comparison showed only a significant difference for the stress incontinence group compared with the control group ( = 0.0084) and not for the urge or mixed incontinent group. No clear correlation between SUL, FUL, and ICIQ-SF score was found. . SUL measured by noninvasive perineal ultrasound is a suitable parameter in the assessment of female incontinence, since incontinent women show a significantly elongated urethra as a sign of tissue insufficiency, independent of the type of incontinence.

Citing Articles

Correlation analysis of selected anatomical and functional parameters of the urethra, assessed through ultrasound and urodynamic examinations.

Wojtowicz H, Wlazlak E, Kociszewski J, Wlazlak W, Krakowiak J, Fijolek-Wieclawek W J Ultrason. 2025; 24(99):1-7.

PMID: 39839502 PMC: 11748197. DOI: 10.15557/jou.2024.0039.

Perineal ultrasound to assess the urethral spatial movement in stress urinary incontinence in women.

Dong B, Shi Y, Chen Y, Liu M, Lu X, Liu Y BMC Urol. 2023; 23(1):44.

PMID: 36973802 PMC: 10041725. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-023-01220-x.

Inverse correlation between urethral length and continence before and after native tissue pelvic floor reconstruction.

Mothes A, Mothes H, Kather A, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Radosa M, Radosa J Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):22011.

PMID: 34759288 PMC: 8580999. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-01565-z.

The pathophysiology of stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Falah-Hassani K, Reeves J, Shiri R, Hickling D, McLean L Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32(3):501-552.

PMID: 33416968 PMC: 8053188. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04622-9.

References

Pregazzi R, Sartore A, Bortoli P, Grimaldi E, Troiano L, Guaschino S . Perineal ultrasound evaluation of urethral angle and bladder neck mobility in women with stress urinary incontinence. BJOG. 2002; 109(7):821-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01163.x. View

Di Pietto L, Scaffa C, Torella M, Lambiase A, Cobellis L, Colacurci N . Perineal ultrasound in the study of urethral mobility: proposal of a normal physiological range. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008; 19(10):1405-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-008-0644-5. View

DeLancey J, Miller J, Kearney R, Howard D, Reddy P, Umek W . Vaginal birth and de novo stress incontinence: relative contributions of urethral dysfunction and mobility. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110(2 Pt 1):354-62. PMC: 2752814. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000270120.60522.55. View

Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Mattiasson A, Pesce F, Spangberg A . Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002; 21(3):261-74. DOI: 10.1002/nau.10066. View

Minardi D, Piloni V, Amadi A, El Asmar Z, Milanese G, Muzzonigro G . Correlation between urodynamics and perineal ultrasound in female patients with urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006; 26(2):176-82. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20327. View

Martin J, Williams K, Abrams K, Turner D, Sutton A, Chapple C . Systematic review and evaluation of methods of assessing urinary incontinence. Health Technol Assess. 2006; 10(6):1-132, iii-iv. DOI: 10.3310/hta10060. View

Najjari L, Hennemann J, Kirschner-Hermanns R, Maass N, Papathemelis T . Visualization of polypropylene and polyvinylidene fluoride slings in perineal ultrasound and correlation with clinical outcome. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:181035. PMC: 4122004. DOI: 10.1155/2014/181035. View

Macotela-Nakagaki K, del Puerto H, Valente-Acosta B, Chabat-Manzanera P . [Relationship between urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse]. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2014; 81(12):711-5. View

McCulloch P, Altman D, Glasziou P, Marshall J, Aronson J, Barkun J . No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009; 374(9695):1105-12. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8. View

10.

Dietz H . Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. Part I: two-dimensional aspects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 23(1):80-92. DOI: 10.1002/uog.939. View

11.

Hilton P, Stanton S . Urethral pressure measurement by microtransducer: the results in symptom-free women and in those with genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983; 90(10):919-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1983.tb06764.x. View

12.

Henriksson L, Andersson K, Ulmsten U . The urethral pressure profiles in continent and stress-incontinent women. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1979; 13(1):5-10. DOI: 10.3109/00365597909179993. View

13.

Lose G, Griffiths D, Hosker G, Kulseng-Hanssen S, Perucchini D, Schafer W . Standardisation of urethral pressure measurement: report from the Standardisation Sub-Committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002; 21(3):258-60. DOI: 10.1002/nau.10051. View

14.

Versi E . Discriminant analysis of urethral pressure profilometry data for the diagnosis of genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 97(3):251-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb01790.x. View

15.

Dietz H . Pelvic floor ultrasound in prolapse: what's in it for the surgeon?. Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22(10):1221-32. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1459-3. View

16.

Pizzoferrato A, Fauconnier A, Bader G . [Value of ultrasonographic measurement of bladder neck mobility in the management of female stress urinary incontinence]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2010; 39(1):42-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2010.09.019. View

17.

Temml C, Haidinger G, Schmidbauer J, Schatzl G, Madersbacher S . Urinary incontinence in both sexes: prevalence rates and impact on quality of life and sexual life. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000; 19(3):259-71. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1520-6777(2000)19:3<259::aid-nau7>3.0.co;2-u. View

18.

Dietz H, Clarke B, Vancaillie T . Vaginal childbirth and bladder neck mobility. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002; 42(5):522-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.0004-8666.2002.00522.x. View

19.

Merz E, Eichhorn K, von Kaisenberg C, Schramm T . [Updated quality requirements regarding secondary differentiated ultrasound examination in prenatal diagnostics (= DEGUM level II) in the period from 18 + 0 to 21 + 6 weeks of gestation]. Ultraschall Med. 2012; 33(6):593-6. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1325500. View

20.

Minaire P, Jacquetin B . [The prevalence of female urinary incontinence in general practice]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1992; 21(7):731-8. View