Severe urinary tract damage secondary to primary bladder neck obstruction in women
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
2
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
Autores
Citação
PLOS ONE, v.16, n.3, article ID e0248938, 10p, 2021
Resumo
Objective To present the clinical and radiological characteristics of women with severe structural deterioration of the bladder and upper urinary tract secondary to Primary Bladder Neck Obstruction (PBNO), and their outcomes after bladder neck incision (BNI). Methods Retrospective evaluation of adult women who underwent BNI for PBNO at one institution. Patients were assessed for symptoms, renal function, structural abnormalities of the urinary tract and video-urodynamics. PBNO diagnosis was confirmed with video-urodynamics in all patients. BNI was performed at the 4-5 and/or 7-8 o'clock positions. Postoperative symptoms, PVR, uroflowmetry and renal function were evaluated and compared to baseline. Results Median patient age was 56.5 years (range 40-80). All presented with urinary retention-four were on clean intermittent Catheterization (CIC) and two with a Foley catheter. All patients had bladder wall thickening and diverticula. Four women had elevated creatinine levels, bilateral hydronephrosis was present in five (83.3%). After BNI, all patients resumed spontaneous voiding without the need for CIC. Median Qmax significantly improved from 2.0 [1.0-4.0] mL/s to 15 [10-22.7] mL/s (p = 0.031). Median PVR decreased from 150 to 46 [22-76] mL (p = 0.031). There were no postoperative complications. Creatinine levels returned to normal in 3/4 (75%) patients. Conclusion PBNO in women may result in severe damage to the bladder and upper urinary tract. Despite severe structural abnormalities of the bladder, BNI was effective in reducing symptoms and improving structural and functional abnormalities of the lower and upper urinary tract.
Palavras-chave
Referências
- Abrams P, 1999, BJU INT, V84, P14
- Ammirati E, 2017, UROLOG J, V84, P109, DOI 10.5301/uro.5000203
- Athanasopoulos A, 2009, INT UROGYNECOL J, V20, P217, DOI 10.1007/s00192-008-0749-x
- AXELROD SL, 1987, J UROLOGY, V137, P497, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)44086-9
- Blaivas JG, 2004, J UROLOGY, V171, P1172, DOI 10.1097/01.ju.0000112929.34864.2c
- Brucker BM, 2012, UROLOGY, V80, P55, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.011
- Chassagne S, 1998, UROLOGY, V51, P408, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00634-1
- DIOKNO AC, 1984, J UROLOGY, V132, P294, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)49601-7
- GRONBAEK K, 1992, SCAND J UROL NEPHROL, V26, P113, DOI 10.1080/00365599.1992.11690441
- Hickling D, 2012, CURR UROL REP, V13, P356, DOI 10.1007/s11934-012-0267-8
- Hoffman DS, 2016, CURR UROL REP, V17, DOI 10.1007/s11934-016-0586-2
- Jin XB, 2012, UROLOGY, V79, P310, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.004
- Kumar A, 1999, J UROLOGY, V162, P2061, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68101-3
- Kuo HC, 2005, UROLOGY, V66, P1005, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.047
- Lemack GE, 2006, NAT CLIN PRACT UROL, V3, P38, DOI 10.1038/ncpuro0378
- Markic D, 2014, WIEN KLIN WOCHENSCHR, V126, P217, DOI 10.1007/s00508-014-0502-z
- Nitti VW, 1999, J UROLOGY, V161, P1535, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68947-1
- Peng CH, 2005, UROLOGY, V65, P275, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2004.09.019
- Pischedda A, 2005, UROL INT, V74, P256, DOI 10.1159/000083559
- Sussman Rachael D, 2019, Rev Urol, V21, P53
- Trockman BA, 1996, J UROLOGY, V156, P1418, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65605-2
- Zhang P, 2014, UROLOGY, V83, P762, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2013.10.084