Interaction of sensory and contractile bladder function in patients with suprapubic tube

Introduction. The gold standard for assessment of urinary bladder function is a comprehensive urodynamic study. In clinical practice, there is a great need for inexpensive and minimally invasive diagnostic tool to provide information about bladder function in patients with suprapubic drainage.
Objective. To evaluate the diagnostic value of a functional bladder filling test to assess bladder contractile function in patients with suprapubic tube.
Materials & methods. The study included 70 men with suprapubic tube initially placed for urinary retention due to BPO/BPH. A month after cystostomy, patients were assessed for the functional state of the detrusor. It consisted of filling tests assessing the sensory functions of the bladder and urodynamic data obtained during cystometry at the attempt of urination. Finally, a comparison of the results of both tests was carried out.
Results. Assessment of sensory bladder function showed that 43 patients had normal sensitivity, 24 had reduced sensory function, and 3 patients had no sensitivity. In patients with normal sensitivity, the maximum detrusor pressure (Pdet) was 83.2 ± 46.4 cm H₂O. Among patients with reduced sensitivity, the maximum Pdet was 16.8 ± 3.1 cm H₂O, which placed them in the category of unsatisfactory contractile bladder function. In patients with no bladder sensitivity, there was no increase in Pdet during attempted urination, indicating the absence of contractile bladder function. Thus, bladder sensitivity correlated with indicators of its contractility (p < 0.05).
Conclusion. Our study demonstrates the correlation between the results of the clinical method for assessing bladder function and those of urodynamic testing. The functional test conducted proved its reliability in evaluating bladder sensitivity and contractility, particularly in situations where performing a standard urodynamic study is difficult.

1. Pushkar’ D.Yu., Malhasyan V.A., Hodyreva L.A., Rasner P.I., Kupriyanov Yu.A., Dudareva A.A., Semenyakin I.V., Engay V.A., Zingerenko M.B., Zinuhov A.F., Mamaev I.E., Otvetchikov I.N., Red’kovich V.I., Suleymanov S.I., Tahirzade T.B., Tedeev V.V., Trushkin R.N., Cyganov S.V., Motin P.I., Lasskiy I.A. Analysis of medical care and optimazation for patients with acute urinary retention admitted to hospital in Moscow. Experimental and clinical urology. 2016;(2):4-7. (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 29899533; EDN: ZEHOUJ

2. Guo DP, Comiter CV, Elliott CS. Urodynamics of men with urinary retention. Int J Urol. 2017;24(9):703-707. DOI: 10.1111/iju.13395

3. Madersbacher S. Urodynamics prior to prostatectomy: pro. Eur Urol. 2004;45(5):557-560. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.12.008

4. Neal DE. The National Prostatectomy Audit. Br J Urol. 1997;79 Suppl 2:69-75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1997.tb16924.x

5. Mebust WK, Holtgrewe HL, Cockett AT, Peters PC. Transurethral prostatectomy: immediate and postoperative complications. A cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J Urol. 1989;141(2):243-247. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)40731-2

6. Lewis JM, Yalla SV, Stanitski KE, Sullivan MP. Spectrum of urodynamic abnormalities and renal function changes in adult men with nonneurogenic urinary retention. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(4):544-548. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22196

7. Rischmann P. Urodynamics prior to prostatectomy: con. Eur Urol. 2004;45(5):561-563. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.12.009

8. Shaw C, Williams K, Assassa PR, Jackson C. Patient satisfaction with urodynamics: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(6):1356-1363. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01627.x

9. D’Ancona C, Haylen B, Oelke M, Abranches-Monteiro L, Arnold E, Goldman H, Hamid R, Homma Y, Marcelissen T, Rademakers K, Schizas A, Singla A, Soto I, Tse V, de Wachter S, Herschorn S; Standardisation Steering Committee ICS and the ICS Working Group on Terminology for Male Lower Urinary Tract & Pelvic Floor Symptoms and Dysfunction. The International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for adult male lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms and dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(2):433-477. DOI: 10.1002/nau.23897

10. Sullivan MP, DuBeau CE, Resnick NM, Cravalho EG, Yalla SV. Continuous occlusion test to determine detrusor contractile performance. J Urol. 1995;154(5):1834-1840. PMID: 7563358

11. Thomas AW, Cannon A, Bartlett E, Ellis-Jones J, Abrams P. The natural history of lower urinary tract dysfunction in men: minimum 10-year urodynamic follow-up of untreated detrusor underactivity. BJU Int. 2005;96(9):1295-1300. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05891.x

12. Liu S, Chan L, Tse V. Clinical outcome in male patients with detrusor overactivity with impaired contractility. Int Neurourol J. 2014;18(3):133- 137. DOI: 10.5213/inj.2014.18.3.133

13. Thomas AW, Cannon A, Bartlett E, Ellis-Jones J, Abrams P. The natural history of lower urinary tract dysfunction in men: the influence of detrusor underactivity on the outcome after transurethral resection of the prostate with a minimum 10-year urodynamic follow-up. BJU Int. 2004;93(6):745-750. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2003.04719.x

14. Borisov V.V. Dysfunction of the bladder. Urology Herald. 2014;(1):50- 63. (In Russian). DOI:10.21886/2308-6424-2014-0-1-50-63

15. Ouslander J, Leach G, Abelson S, Staskin D, Blaustein J, Raz S. Simple versus multichannel cystometry in the evaluation of bladder function in an incontinent geriatric population. J Urol. 1988;140(6):1482-1486. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)42080-5

16. Albitskaya A.Yu., Lopatkin N.A., Mudraya I.S., Khodyreva L.A., Tkachenko Yu.N. Diagnosis of urinary bladder function in patients with epicystostoma. Urologiia. 2008;(4):31-33. (In Russian). eLIBRARY ID: 11706976; EDN: JWEUDB; PMID: 19058361