Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

º¹¾Ð¼º ¿ä½Ç±Ý ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ Valsalva Leak Point Pressure ÃøÁ¤ÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû À¯¿ë¼º Clinical Usefulness of Valsalva Leak Point Pressure as a Diagnostic Tool in Stress Urinary Incontinence

´ëÇѺñ´¢±â°úÇÐȸÁö 1998³â 39±Ç 9È£ p.890 ~ 895
À̵¿¼ö, ¹ÚÈì·Ê,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À̵¿¼ö (  ) 
°í·Á´ëÇб³

¹ÚÈì·Ê (  ) 
°í·Á´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ºñ´¢±â°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

°á·Ð
ȯÀÚÀÇ Áõ»óÁ¤µµ¿Í VLPP´Â ÀÏÁ¤ÇÑ ¿¬°ü¼ºÀ» º¸¿© ¿ä½Ç±ÝÁõ»óÁ¤µµ°¡ ½ÉÇÒ¼ö·Ï VLPP´Â
³·¾ÆÁö´Â ¼Ò°ßÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. ƯÈ÷ grade ¥°ÀÇ ¿ä½Ç±ÝÁõ»óÀÌ ÀÖ¾ú´ø ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­´Â ³·Àº
VLPP(<60§¯H2O)´Â ÀüÇô ¾ø¾úÀ¸³ª g1ade ¥± ¿ä½Ç±Ý¿¡¼­´Â 187%¿¡¼­µµ ³·Àº
VLPP°¡ °üÂûµÇ¾î ¿äµµÀÇ °ú´ÙÀ¯µ¿¼ºÀ» µ¿¹ÝÇÑ glade ¥±Áõ»óÀÇ ¿ä½Ç±Ý¿©¼º¿¡¼­ YLPP ÃøÁ¤
ÀÌ ¼ö¼ú¹æ¹ýÀ» °áÁ¤ÇÏ´Â Áß¿äÇÑ ÀÎÀÚ¶ó°í »ý°¢µÈ´Ù ¾Æ¿ï·¯ VLPP °Ë»çÄ¡°¡ ISD¸¦ ÆÇÁ¤ÇÏ´Â
µ¥ ¸ðÈ£ÇÏ´Ù°í ÆÇÁ¤µÉ ¶§¿¡´Â ´Ù¸¥ ÀÓ»óÀûÀÎ ÁöÇ¥µéÀ» °°ÀÌ °í·ÁÇÏ¿© Ä¡·á¹æ¹ýÀ» °áÁ¤Çؾß
ÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÈ´Ù
#ÃÊ·Ï#
Purpose : The valsalva leak Point pressure(VLPP) has been suggested as an objective
tool for diagosing female stress urinary incontinence(SUI) accompained by intrinsic
sphictor deficiency(ISD) Our aims were to determine the predictive value of VLPP in
patients with ISD and correlation between VLPP and other parameters as a diagnostic
tool for ISD.
Material and Methods : Sixty-seven patients with stress urinary incontinence were
evaluated propectively with symptom grade(Stamey grade). Q-tip test, 1hr pad test, and
VLPP. Correlations of VLPP and these clinical parameters were computed. VLPP of 60§¯
H2O was determined as a cut-off value of ISD and compared with other
parameters(symptom grade, hypermobility).
Results : Of the total 67 patients, SUI was grade ¥°in 20(29.8%) ¥± in 32(47.8%) and
¥² in 15(22.4%). Of the 67 patients, 48 had VLPP of more than 60§¯H2O.
Among these, SUI was grade ¥° in 20(100%), ¥± in 26(81.3%) and ¥² in 2(13.3%). There
were significant differences in the incidence between grade ¥² and grade ¥° or ¥±
(P<0.01). Of the 19 patients with VLPP of 60§¯H2O or less, SUI grade ¥²
in 77 in 13(86.7%); where SUI was grade ¥°in 0(0%) and ¥± in 6(18.7%) with statistical
significance between grade ¥² and grade ¥° or ¥±. Urethral hypermobility was noted in
56(83.6%); this was ¥° in 20(100%), ¥± in 26(81.8%) and ¥² in 10(67%). Among the SUI
patients without hypermobility, none had symptoms of grade ¥°: whereas 33.3% of grade
¥² patients didn't show hypermobility. There appeared significant correlation(p<0.001)
between the VLPP and symptom grade(correlation coefficient=0.68). Moderate correlations
were present between either symptom grade or VLPP and amount of urine
leakage(correlation coefficient=0.5). No statistically significant relationship existed
between either VLPP or symptom grade and urethral hypermobility.
Conclusion: subjective degree(such as symptom severity or amount of urine loss) of
stress incontinence seems useful in predicting the likelihood of low valsalva leak point
pressure which suggests intrinsic sphinctor deficiency. By the result that some women
of grade ¥± incontinence with urethral hypermobility exhibited low VLPP, measurement
of VLPP could be a valuable tool in choosing the treatment modality of stress urinary
incontinence.

Å°¿öµå

female stress urinary incontinence; Intrinsic sphincter deficiency; Valsalva leak point pressure;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS