膀胱容量标准化尿垫试验对女性张力性尿失禁的评估价值

Evaluating Value of Bladder Capacity Standardization Pad Test for Women Stress Urinary Incontinence

目的:探讨运用膀胱容量标准化尿垫试验评价女性张力性尿失禁(SUI)轻重程度的可行性及价值。方法:经临床诊断为SUI的98例患者分别进行1 h尿垫试验和膀胱容量标准化尿垫试验,询问并填写国际尿失禁标准问卷(改良的布里斯托问卷,ICIQ-FLUTS)。比较两种尿垫试验用于判断SUI轻重程度的差异,分析膀胱容量标准化尿垫试验与ICIQ评分的相关性。结果:膀胱容量标准化尿垫试验中尿垫重量平均增加9.54 g,1 h尿垫试验平均增加4.98 g,P<0.05,差别有统计学意义。两种尿垫试验判断有无漏尿存在的准确率分别为90.82%(89/98)、85.71%(84/98),P>0.05,差别无统计学意义。膀胱容量标准化尿垫试验与ICIQ-Q11a评分判定SUI程度结果相似,P>0.05;而与1 h尿垫试验、ICIQ-Q11b评分判定SUI程度结果差异显著,P<0.05,结论:膀胱容量标准化尿垫试验在判定尿失禁程度方面结果准确、稳定,值得推荐使用。

Objective： To explore the value and efficacy of bladder capacity standardization pad test for evaluating the severity of stress urinary incontinence（SUI）.Methods： Ninety-eight patients of SUI were adapted 1 hour pad test and bladder capacity standardization pad test.Information of all patients were asked and filled in the international urinary incontinence standard questionnaire（improved Bristol questionnaire,ICIQ-FLUTS）.We compared the difference of two kinds of pad test using for judging the severity of SUI as well as analyzing bladder capacity standardization pad test and the correlation of ICIQ score.Results： When pad weight of bladder capacity standardization pad test increased by an average of 9.54 g,pad weight of 1 hour urine pad test increased by an average of 4.98 g,the difference was statistically significant（P〈0.05）.Accuracy of judgment whether existing leakage was respectively 90.82%（89/98） and 85.71%（84/98）,which showed no significant difference.Results of Bladder capacity standardization pad test were similar to the results of ICIQ-Q11a scores in evaluating SUI severity（P 0. 05）,while the results were significantly different from those of 1 hour pad test or scores of ICIQ-Q11b in judging SUI severity（P〈0.05）.Conclusion： Bladder capacity standardization pad test is a reliable and recommended method using for judging SUI severity.