92例女性尿失禁患者的尿动力学分析  

Urodynamic analysis of 92 women with urinary incontinence

作　　者：刘宁[1] 冯超[1] 吴宗山[1] 刘春林[1] 渠渊[1] 张进生[1] 

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学附属复兴医院泌尿外科,北京100038

出　　处：《北京医学》2010年第11期887-889,共3页Beijing Medical Journal

摘　　要：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 investigate the application of urodynamics in diagnosing women with urinary incontinence. Methods A total of 92 women with urinary incontinence （aged from 39 to 52） was included in this study. Urodynamic examinations were performed in all patients according to the recommendations of the International Continence Society （ICS）. The women with urinary incontinence were divided into three groups according to the results of urodynamic examinations, including the genuine stress urinary incontinence group （SI, 56 cases）, urge urinary incontinence group （UI, 13 cases） and mixed urge/stress urinary incontinence group （MI, 23 cases）. Results There was no difference in the SI and MI groups with ALPP （P 0.05）. Maximum cystometric capacity and bladder compliance of SI and MI was higher than that of the UI groups （P 0.01）. Maximum urethral pressure and maximum urethral closure pressure of SI and MI was lower than UI groups （P 0.01）. There was no difference in three groups with maximum flow rate, the pressure of detrusor at maximum flow rate and functional profile length （P 0.05）. Conclusion Urodynamic testing should be regarded as an essential part of diagnosis and therapy for women with incontinence.

关 键 词：尿动力学 尿失禁 女性 

分 类 号：R694[医药卫生—泌尿科学]