论文部分内容阅读
目的了解尿动力学检查在诊断女性尿失禁中的意义。方法选取92例女性尿失禁患者,年龄39~52岁。依据临床和尿动力学检查结果分为真性压力性尿失禁(SI)患者(56例)、急迫性尿失禁(UI)患者(13例)、混合型急迫性/压力性尿失禁(MI)患者(23例),比较各组患者尿动力学参数的差异。结果在腹压漏尿点压(ALPP)方面,MI和SI两组比较无显著差异(P>0.05),在最大膀胱容量(MCC)、膀胱顺应性(BC)、最大尿道压(Pmu)和最大尿道闭合压(Pmuc)方面,3组患者存在非常显著性差异(P<0.01),组间比较SI和MI组的MCC和BC明显高于UI组(P<0.01),Pmu和Pmuc明显低于UI组,而SI和MI两组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。在最大尿流率时逼尿肌压(PQmax)、最大尿流率(Qmax)和功能性尿道长度(FPL)方面,3组患者比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论尿动力学检查能为女性尿失禁患者的诊断和治疗提供客观依据。
Objective To understand the significance of urodynamic examination in the diagnosis of female urinary incontinence. Methods 92 cases of female incontinence patients aged 39 to 52 years old. According to clinical and urodynamic findings, patients were classified as true stress urinary incontinence (SI) (56 cases), urgency urinary incontinence (UI) (13 cases), mixed urgency / stress urinary incontinence (23 cases). The difference of urodynamic parameters in each group was compared. Results There was no significant difference in abdominal pressure and leakage pressure (ALPP) between MI and SI groups (P> 0.05). The maximal bladder capacity (MCC), bladder compliance (BC), maximum urethral pressure There was a significant difference in Pmuc between the three groups (P <0.01). The MCC and BC of SI and MI groups were significantly higher than that of UI group (P <0.01), Pmu and Pmuc were significantly lower In the UI group, there was no significant difference between SI and MI (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the three groups in PQmax, Qmax and FPL at the maximal uroflow rate (P> 0.05). Conclusion Urodynamic examination can provide an objective basis for the diagnosis and treatment of female patients with incontinence.