Prevalence of Hydronephrosis in Women With Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse - 21/08/15
, Daphne Walker b, Diane Thomas a, Begüm Özel aAbstract |
Objective |
To describe the prevalence of hydronephrosis in advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to describe clinical and urodynamic parameters associated with hydronephrosis.
Materials and Methods |
Prospective, observational cohort study examining the prevalence of hydronephrosis in advanced POP. Women with a POP-Q examination of at least +1 for points C, Aa, or Ba were enrolled and screened for hydronephrosis. Basic demographics, clinical, and urodynamic findings among women with and without hydronephrosis were compared. The University of Southern California IRB approved this protocol.
Results |
A total of 180 participants were enrolled. Fifty-five women had some hydronephrosis, for a prevalence of 30.6% (24.3%-37.6%). Mean age was 57.9 (±9.0) years and mean body mass index was 29.2 kg/m2 (± 4.6). Of the participants, 80.6% were postmenopausal. The presence of diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with hydronephrosis (8% without vs 21.8% with, P = .009), as was the degree of anterior and apical (median Aa, Ba, C, and D higher with hydronephrosis than without, P <.01) but not posterior POP (median Ap and Bp, P = .13, and .2, respectively). On multichannel urodynamics, participants with hydronephrosis had higher mean post void residuals (64.8 vs 38.5 mL, P = .007), lower mean first leak (199.6 vs 280.8 mL, P = .006), and higher mean maximum cystometric capacity (525.2 vs 476.7 mL, P = .02) compared with participants without hydronephrosis.
Conclusion |
The prevalence of hydronephrosis in women with advanced POP is 30.6%. Clinical factors associated with hydronephrosis include degree of anterior or apical POP and diabetes mellitus. Urodynamic factors associated with hydronephrosis include elevated postvoid residuals, larger cystometric capacity, and lower volume at first leak.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Reprints will not be available. |
|
| Christina E. Dancz contributed to protocol development, data collection, data analysis, and article writing. Begüm Özel contributed to protocol development, data analysis, and article editing. Diane Thomas contributed to protocol development, data collection, data analysis, and article editing. Daphne Walker contributed to protocol development, ultrasonogram reviews, and article editing. |
|
| Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. |
|
| Funding Support: This work was supported by an Ultrasound Research grant from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Research reported in this publication was partially supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1TR000130 (formerly by the National Center for Research Resources, Award Number UL1RR031986). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. |
Vol 86 - N° 2
P. 250-254 - août 2015 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
