Interventional procedure overview of botulinum toxin type A injection into the urethral sphincter for idiopathic chronic non-obstructive urinary retention
Closed for comments This consultation ended on at Request commenting lead permission
Summary of key evidence on botulinum toxin type A injection into the urethral sphincter for idiopathic chronic non-obstructive urinary retention
Study 1 Jiang Y-H (2016)
Study type | RCT (NCT01733290) |
---|---|
Country | Taiwan, Helsinki |
Recruitment period | 2012-2014 |
Study population and number | N=73 patients with DV or DU refractory to medical or behavioural treatment. (48 in botulinum injection group versus 25 in placebo group) |
Age and sex | Mean age 65.2± 15.2 years (range, 28 to 87 years); botulinum injection group 64.7 years versus placebo injection group 66.9 years; p= 0.562. Sex: overall 66% (48/73) women; At 1 month, botulinum injection group had 76% (29/38) women, placebo injection group had 76% (19/25) women |
Patient selection criteria | Inclusion criteria: patients more than 20 years of age with a 3-month history of medically refractory non-neurogenic voiding dysfunction (DV and DU diagnosed by video-urodynamic studies). DV was diagnosed in patients with an open bladder neck and narrow membranous urethra, a poorly relaxed urethral sphincter, and a normal to-high voiding pressure with a low and/or intermittent urinary flow during voiding. DU was diagnosed in patients with low voiding pressure and low flow rate, a post-void residual volume >300 mL, and a low VE (<33%) and the presence of a relaxed urethral sphincter during voiding. Exclusion criteria: anatomic bladder outlet obstruction conditions, including benign prostatic obstruction in men, bladder neck obstruction or contracture, and urethral stricture, active UTI, interstitial cystitis, and occult or overt neuropathy (including cerebrovascular accidents, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and spinal cord injury). |
Technique | All injections were done under general anaesthesia through a transurethral route in men and perineal route in women. Treatment group (n=48) received injections of botulinum (100U diluted was with 5ml saline) into the external urethral sphincter. Men received 10 injections using a 23 gauge needle. Each injection site received 10U of botulinum or 0.5ml of normal saline. Women received 5 urethral sphincter injections of botulnium solution or 1.0ml of normal saline circumferentially into the urethral sphincter using a 27 gauge 1ml syringe needle. Placebo group (n=25) received normal saline (5ml) injections (10 in men and 5 in women) After injections, a Foley catheter was inserted overnight in men but not in women. Patients are discharged next day and oral antibiotics are given for a week. 48 in the botulinum group and 25 in placebo group received first injection, and 19 and 13 patients in each group received a second botulinum injection after 1 month. |
Follow up | 1 month. |
Conflict of interest/source of funding | Study was approved by Tzu-Chi General Hospital. No external funding for this study. |
Analysis
Follow-up issues: short follow-up period with high loss to follow-up. 11 patients (10 in botulinum group and 1 in placebo group) were lost to follow-up during the study period. Data were available in 38 patients in botulinum injection group and 24 patients in placebo injection group at 1 month follow-up.
Study design issues: small number of patients were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio by block randomisation. Patients, doctors and nurses were blinded. Video-urodynamic studies were done according to International Continence Society recommendations. Different routes of injection were used for men and women. The primary outcome was change in PPBC score at 1 month from baseline. Other endpoints assessed were changes from baseline in IPSS, QOL (assessed according to IPSS system questionnaire and was scored from 0 to 6, representing excellent to bad), VV, PVR, Pdet and adverse events. If patients were not satisfied with the treatment result, repeated urethral sphincter botulinum injection was done regardless of patient allocation. Patients receiving a second injection were assessed in the same manner used for the first treatment.
Study population issues: baseline patient characteristics and urodynamic parameters were not statistically significantly different between the 2 study groups. Patients with 2 different indications were included in the study.
Key efficacy findings
Number of patients analysed: 62 (38 botulinum injection versus 24 placebo injection)
Overall success rate (reduction of PPBC ≥2) at 1 month: 43.5%
Botulinum injection % (n=38) | Placebo injection % (n=24) | P value | |
Success rate (PPBC>2) | 36.8 (14/38) | 54.2 (13/24) | 0.114 |
Botulinum injection (n=38) | Placebo injection (n=24) | P value (between baseline data of groups) | P value (between the groups after treatment) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
IPSS-V | Baseline | 15.2±5.6 | 14.5±6.7 | 0.468 | 0.002 |
1 month | 12.7±7.0* | 6.0±6.6* | |||
IPSS-S | Baseline | 10.7±4.0 | 11.0±4.3 | 0.518 | 0.074 |
1 month | 8.5±3.8* | 7.1±4.2* | |||
IPSS-T | Baseline | 25.8±8.2 | 25.5±8.8 | 0.776 | 0.001 |
1 month | 21.2±8.6* | 13.1±9.5* | |||
QOL-index | Baseline | 4.5±1.9 | 5.4±0.9 | 0.024 | 0.014 |
1 month | 3.0±1.9* | 2.4±1.9* | |||
PPBC | Baseline | 4.8±1.7 | 5.0±1.7 | 0.761 | 0.066 |
1 month | 3.4±2.0* | 2.7±2.1* | |||
CBC (mL) | Baseline | 378.9±154.2 | 397.8±223.5 | 0.585 | 0.201 |
1 month | 404.6±182.4 | 360.0±140.7 | |||
Pdet (cmH2O) | Baseline | 22.7±24.7 | 25.3±24.6 | 0.444 | 0.161 |
1 month | 19.2±19.6 | 30.5±25.1 | |||
Qmax (mL/s) | Baseline | 5.3±5.7 | 6.3±5.1 | 0.344 | 0.558 |
1 month | 9.8±9.5* | 9.5±6.6* | |||
Vol (mL) | Baseline | 104.8±112.2 | 102.4±101.4 | 0.942 | 0.627 |
1 month | 170.7±140.5* | 148.5±144.7 | |||
PVR (mL) | Baseline | 295.7±194.1 | 279.3±246.9 | 0.965 | 0.141 |
1 month | 251.7±214.0 | 146.6±160.5* | |||
VE (%) | Baseline | 29.6±28.3 | 34.4±34.2 | 0.530 | 0.336 |
1 month | 44.1±35.3* | 56.1±36.4* |
Data are presented as mean±SD; *p value <0.05 versus baseline
Changes of symptom scores and VUDS parameters after first EUS injection
DV (n=31) | DU (n=31) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Botulinum (n=16) | Placebo (n=15) | P value^ | Botulinum (n=22) | Placebo (n=9) | P value ^ | ||
IPSS-V | Baseline | 12.7±6.6 | 14.1±5.8 | 17.0±3.8 | 15.1±8.4 | ||
1 month | 8.3±7.6* | 5.7±5.8* | 0.089 | 16.0±4.3 | 6.6±8.2* | 0.036 | |
IPSS-S | Baseline | 11.4±4.3 | 12.1±4.0 | 10.1±3.8 | 9.8±4.5 | ||
1 month | 8.5±3.7* | 6.3±3.9* | 0.089 | 8.5±3.9 | 8.4±4.5 | 0.831 | |
IPSS-T | Baseline | 24.1±10.3 | 26.2±7.8 | 27.1±6.2 | 24.3±10.7 | ||
1 month | 16.8±10.4* | 12.0±8.0* | 0.026 | 24.4±5.2* | 15.0±11.8* | 0.002 | |
QoL-I | Baseline | 4.4±1.7 | 5.4±1.0 | 4.6±2.0 | 5.4±0.9 | ||
1 month | 2.8±2.1* | 2.4±2.1* | 0.089 | 3.0±1.9* | 2.4±1.8* | 0.107 | |
PPBC | Baseline | 4.8±1.4 | 5.4±1.4 | 4.7±1.9 | 4.4±1.9 | ||
1 month | 3.3±1.9* | 2.5±2.2* | 0.085 | 3.5±2.1* | 3.0±1.8* | 0.814 | |
CBC (ml) | Baseline | 359.0±172.6 | 334±176 | 393.9±141 | 497±262.5 | ||
1 month | 365.0±154.4 | 354±125.7 | 0.860 | 434.7±199.4 | 369±169.2 | 0.042 | |
Pdet (cmH2O) | Baseline | 40.3±23.0 | 35.6±25.1 | 9.2±16.4 | 9.1±12.8 | ||
1 month | 31.6±22.3* | 32.1±22.6 | 0.473 | 9.8±10.0 | 27.9±30.0 | 0.070 | |
Qmax (mL/s) | Baseline | 6.4±5.4 | 7.9±5.2 | 4.5±6.0 | 3.4±3.7 | ||
1 month | 11.1±10.1* | 8.9±4.7 | 0.099 | 8.8±9.1* | 10.6±9.2* | 0.445 | |
Vol. (mL) | Baseline | 119.9±82.2 | 136.3±109 | 93.9±130.9 | 45.9±54.9 | ||
1 month | 191.0±140.1* | 117.5±63.7 | 0.020 | 155.0±142.0 | 200±219.7 | 0.182 | |
PVR (mL) | Baseline | 225.0±200.7 | 198±168.2 | 350.0±174.6 | 415±304.0 | ||
1 month | 198.0±179.1 | 156±160.5 | 0.770 | 293.0±233.1 | 131±169.1* | 0.046 | |
VE (%) | Baseline | 42.1±27.8 | 44.9±32.2 | 20.8±28.5 | 17.0±31.5 | ||
1 month | 50.5±34.6 | 52.8±34.6 | 0.969 | 39.4±36.0* | 61.6±40.7* | 0.094 |
*p<0.05 versus baseline. ^ p value between groups after treatment. Data are presented as mean±SD.
DV (n=7) | DU (n=12) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Changes after 1st injection | Changes after 2nd injection | P value | Changes after 1st injection | Changes after 2nd injection | P value | |
IPSS-V | −4.0±5.5 | −3.4±5.4 | 0.848 | −1.0±4.0 | −6.3±7.0* | 0.035 |
IPSS-S | −2.3±3.9 | −3.4±3.3* | 0.563 | −2.1±3.8 | −4.5±5.7* | 0.250 |
IPSS-T | −6.3±6.7* | −6.9±3.5* | 0.846 | −3.0±5.0 | −10.7±10.8* | 0.051 |
QOL-index | −1.0±2.2 | −2.0±1.5* | 0.337 | −1.8±1.8* | −3.1±2.2* | 0.144 |
PPBC | −0.9±2.7 | −1.7±1.8* | 0.502 | −0.9±1.6 | −1.8±1.7* | 0.202 |
CBC (ml) | 60.6±105.5 | 143.3±143.0* | 0.242 | 32.1±72.8 | 77.2±148.5 | 0.381 |
Pdet (cmH20) | −8.1±14.7 | −13.4±21.1 | 0.597.5 | 2±10.7 | 3.8±10.0 | 0.719 |
Qmax (mL/s) | 1.3±5.2 | 2.6±6.0 | 0.676 | −0.6±3.8 | 5.4±5.5* | 0.008 |
Vol (mL) | 17.9±64.7 | 29.7±55.8 | 0.720 | −10.3±94.5 | 57.5±150.5 | 0.206 |
PVR (mL) | 29.1±104.2 | 21.3±124.7 | 0.900 | −1.3±174.4 | −70.9±179.3 | 0.367 |
VE (%) | −7.7±25.8 | −1.9±31.8 | 0.715 | −0.2±17.2 | 19.5±37.1 | 0.113 |
*p<0.05 versus baseline.
DV (n=9) | DU (n=4) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Changes after 1st placebo injection | Changes after 2nd Botulinum injection | P value | Changes after 1st injection | Changes after 2nd injection | P value | |
IPSS-V | −6.1±4.7* | −4.5±7.1 | 0.585 | −7.0±8.9 | −7.8±8.7 | 0.908 |
IPSS-S | −5.3±4.4* | −2.9±6.1 | 0.354 | −0.0±3.6 | −2.3±5.1 | 0.498 |
IPSS-T | −11.4±7.9* | −7.4±12.1 | 0.419 | −7.0±6.3 | −10.0±4.5* | 0.468 |
QOL-index | −2.3±2.1* | −1.1±2.5 | 0.289 | −1.75±1.5 | −2.5±2.1 | 0.580 |
PPBC | −2.4±2.1* | −1.6±3.7 | 0.578 | −1.25±1.0 | −2.5±2.1 | 0.317 |
CBC (ml) | −10.0±245.7 | −29.6±225.9 | 0.876 | −133.5±336.7 | −88.5±274.7 | 0.843 |
Pdet (cmH20) | −3.3±14.1 | −8.7±7.9* | 0.719 | 33.8±47.0 | 10.8±28.8 | 0.436 |
Qmax (mL/s) | 1.0±5.4 | 1.6±4.5 | 0.800 | 3.8±4.3 | 2.5±4.1 | 0.691 |
Vol (mL) | 2.2±123.6 | −5.0±88.6 | 0.893 | 180.0±260.6 | 69.5±102.2 | 0.462 |
PVR (mL) | −54.0±201.7 | −107.6±236.3 | 0.621 | −400.2±309.2 | −251.3±296.5 | 0.513 |
VE (%) | 16.6±27.3 | 15.5±27.6 | 0.936 | 64.5±38.9* | 22.3±29.1 | 0.133 |
*p<0.05 versus baseline.
Key safety findings
Complications at 1 month | % (n) |
De novo urgency urinary incontinence* | 4.8 (3/62) |
De novo stress urinary incontinence* | n=1 |
UTI* | 4.8 (3/62) |
Micturition pain* | 3.2 (2/62) |
Haematuria* | 3.2 (2/62) |
Study 2 Kuo H-C (2007a)
Study type | Case series |
---|---|
Country | Taiwan |
Recruitment period | 2002-2005 |
Study population and number | N=27 patients with idiopathic low detrusor contractility (3 had DV, 5 had low detrusor contractility with PRES 10 had DHIC, and 9 had DU) |
Age | Mean age not reported; 81% (22/27) women. |
Patient selection criteria | Inclusion criteria: presence of bladder and urethral dysfunction (idiopathic low detrusor contractility confirmed on VUD studies and defined no evident neuropathy, no functional or anatomic bladder outlet obstruction, a low or no Pdet combined with a Qmax of less than 10 mL/s, and a large PVR of more than 150 mL or urinary retention difficult urination, with a hyperactive or poorly relaxed urethral sphincter), patients in whom treatment with conventional medications had failed. Exclusion criteria: with bladder outlet obstruction. |
Technique | urethral injection of botulinum (50 units or 100 units) performed under general anaesthesia and cystoscopy guidance, directly into the urethral sphincter in men and periurethrally in women.100 units is diluted with 8ml saline. |
Follow up | More than 1 year |
Conflict of interest/source of funding | Allergan company provided botulinum injections. |
Analysis
Follow-up issues: 2 weeks after injection and thereafter regular monthly follow-up.
Study design issues: small retrospective study. Video-urodynamic studies were performed at baseline and after treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to receive of either 50 units or 100 units of botulinum injection. Video-urodynamic studies were done according to International Continence Society recommendations. The outcomes (changes in urodynamic parameters) were compared between patients with and without recovery of detrusor contractility. The QoL index was assessed according to the IPSS (scored from 0 to 6, representing excellent to bad).
Study population issues: patients with different indications were included. Results for each indication were not presented separately. Authors state that age was not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups.
Other issues: patients were advised not to use alpha-adrenergic blockers or skeletal muscle relaxants during study period.
Key efficacy findings
Number of patients analysed: 27
Changes in urodynamic parameters in patients with and without recovery of detrusor contractility after botulinum injections
Recovery of detrusor contractility^ | First bladder sensation (ml) | Pdet or Pves (cm H2O) | Qmax (mL/s) | PVR (mL) | Duration of effect^^ (months) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes 48% (13/27) | |||||
Baseline | 233 ± 106 | 7.4 ± 9.2 | 4.7 ± 5.6 | 328 ± 134 | |
After treatment | 191 ± 87 | 24 ± 13.1* | 13 ± 6.6* | 31 ± 35* | 14 ± 7.6 |
No 52% (14/27) | |||||
Baseline | 368 ± 132 | 47 ± 39† | 4.8± 4.3 | 228 ± 122 | |
After treatment | 297 ± 121 | 32 ± 27* | 7.0± 3.6 | 132 ± 71* | 4.6 ± 2.5 (p<0.001) |
*p<0.05 between baseline and after treatment. Data are presented as mean±SD.
^ defined as an increase in Pdet and Qmax and reduced PVR volume (in 7 patients with DV or low detrusor contractility combined with PRES, 3 with DHIC, and 3 with DU)
^^ length of time from treatment and return of voiding symptoms to pre-treatment level.
Treatment outcomes
Recovery of detrusor contractility^ | Without detrusor contractility recovery^^ | |
Excellent (QOL index improved by >2 and reduction in PVR by >50%) | N=10 | N=1 |
Statistically significantly improved (QOL index improved by >2 and reduction in PVR by <50%) | - | - |
Improved (QOL index improved by 1 and improvement of UD parameters) | N=3 | N=10 |
Failed (no improvement in QOL) | - | N=3 |
^all could void without the aid of abdominal straining.
^^ continued to void with increased abdominal pressure
Overall success rate of treatment was 89% (24/27)
Key safety findings
None reported
Study 3 Kuo H-C (2007b)
Study type | Case series |
---|---|
Country | Taiwan |
Recruitment period | Not reported |
Study population and number | N=66 patients with voiding dysfunction treated with botulinum injections into the EUS. (50 unit injection group [n=33] versus 100 unit injection group [n=33]) (DSD n=6, DV [n=21], PRES [n=11], or DU with non-relaxation of the urethral sphincter [n=28]) |
Age and sex | Mean age: 64.8 years and 60.0 years in the 50 and 100 units injection groups, (p> 0.05). Sex: 54% (18/33) and 58% (19/33) women in the 50 and 100 units injection groups, (p>0.05) |
Patient selection criteria | Inclusion criteria: presence of bladder and urethral dysfunction (idiopathic low detrusor contractility) confirmed on VUD studies (no anatomic bladder outlet obstruction, difficult urination, and urinary retention or a large PVR volume, and low detrusor pressure with a hyperactive or poorly relaxed urethral sphincter), patients with voiding dysfunction in whom treatment with conventional medications (such as α-blockers and skeletal muscle relaxants) had failed. Exclusion criteria: with bladder outlet obstruction. |
Technique | botulinum injections into the urethral sphincter (50 units in 33 patients or 100 units in 33 patients) performed under light intravenous general anaesthesia and cystoscopy guidance transurethrally in men at the 3, 6, 9 and 12 o'clock positions at a depth of about 5 mm and transcutaneously and periurethrally in women at a depth of 15mm.100 units is diluted with 8ml saline. Both groups received same volume of injection but different doses. |
Follow up | More than 12 months |
Conflict of interest/source of funding | Allergan company provided botulinum injections. Study was supported by grants from the National Science Council of Taiwan. |
Analysis
Follow-up issues: 2 weeks after injection and regular monthly follow-up thereafter.
Study design issues: small retrospective study. Video-urodynamic studies and urethral pressure profilometry were performed according to International Continence Society recommendations at baseline and after treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to receive of either 50 units or 100 units of botulinum injection. The outcomes (changes in urodynamic parameters and treatment effect) were compared from baseline to after treatment in each group and also between the 2 groups of patients. The QoL index was assessed according to the IPSS questionnaire ( and scored from 0 to 6, representing excellent to bad).
Study population issues: patients with voiding dysfunction of different aetiologies were included but the allocation of patients with different aetiologies in the 50 unit and 100 unit treatment groups was not equal.
Other issues: other medications such as alpha-adrenergic blockers or skeletal muscle relaxants were not used during study period. No repeat injections were given to patients.
Key efficacy findings
Number of patients analysed: 66
Changes in urodynamic parameters and QOL in patients with 50 units and 100 units of botulinum injections
MCUP (cm H2O) | FPL (cm) | Pdet (cm H2O) | Qmax (mL/s) | PVR (mL) | QOL index | Mean duration of effect (months)^^ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
50 units injection (n=33) | |||||||
Baseline | 66.6 ± 34.4 | 3.3 ± 0.5 | 51.6 ± 40.7 | 5.6 ± 5.3 | 285 ± 154 | 4.1 ± 0.9 | |
After treatment | 48.9 ± 27.3 (p<0.001) | 3.1 ± 0.3 (p=0.186) | 37.5 ± 35.4 (p<0.001) | 8.3 ± 5.4 (p=0.016) | 120 ± 145 (p<0.001) | 1.9 ± 1.2 (p<0.001) | 6.4 ± 3.6 |
100 units injection (n=33) | |||||||
Baseline | 61.9 ± 26.0 | 3.8 ± 1.0 | 53.8 ± 38.9 | 5.8 ± 4.8 | 261 ± 157 | 4.0 ± 1.0 | |
After treatment | 49.5 ± 21.5 (p=0.049) | 4.1 ± 1.0 (p=0.493) | 33.0 ± 31.7 (p=0.006) | 10.5 ± 5.9 (p<0.001) | 114 ± 107 (p<0.001) | 2.2 ± 1.2 (p<0.001) | 8.4 ± 3.4 (p=0.022)* |
*between the 2 groups; Data are presented as mean±SD.
^^ length of time from treatment and return of voiding symptoms to pre-treatment level.
Treatment outcomes
50 units of injection % (n=33) | 100 units of injection % (n=33) | |
Excellent (QOL index improved by >2 and 50% reduction in PVR and ≥ 25% reduction in MUCP) | 69.7 (23/33) | 60.6 (20/33) |
Improved (QOL index improved by 1 and improvement of VUD parameters by either a ≥ 50% reduction in PVR or a ≥ 25% reduction in MUCP) | 15.2 (5/33) | 30.3 (10/33) |
Failed (no improvement in QOL regardless of urodynamic improvement) | 15.2 (5/33) | 9 (3/33) |
Overall rate of success | 84.9 (28/33) | 90.9 (30/33) p=0.452 |
Treatment outcomes in patients with different aetiologies
Excellent %(n) | Improved % (n) | Failed % (n) | p value | |
Poor relaxation of urethral sphincter (n=11) | 0.182 | |||
50 units (n=5) | 60 (3/5) | 40 (2/5) | 0 | |
100 units (n=6) | 100 (6/6) | 0 | 0 | |
DU (n=28) | 0.066 | |||
50 units (n=19) | 68.4 (13/19) | 10..5 (2/19) | 21.1 (4/19) | |
100 units (n=9) | 33.3 (3/9) | 55.6 (5/9) | 11.1 (1/9) | |
DV (n=21) | 0.399 | |||
50 units (n=6) | 83.3 (5/6) | 16.7 (1/6) | 0 | |
100 units (n=15) | 53.3 (8/15) | 33.3 (5/15) | 13.3 (2/15) | |
Data on 6 DSD patients are not presented here as this indication is out of the scope of this assessment.
Key safety findings
None reported
Study 4 Jiang (2021)
Study type | Retrospective case series |
---|---|
Country | Taiwan |
Recruitment period | 2016 |
Study population and number | N= 81 women with non-neurogenic DV |
Age | Age not reported; 100% women |
Patient selection criteria | Inclusion criteria: all women with DV (confirmed on VUD studies) refractory to medical treatment who received urethral botulinum 100 units, evidence of radiographic obstruction at the middle urethra with an open bladder neck and urodynamic findings, with baseline and postoperative urodynamic data were included. Exclusion criteria: no urethral stricture or anatomic bladder outlet obstruction. |
Technique | Urethral botulinum injections were done under light intravenous general anaesthesia 100 units reconstituted to 4 ml with normal saline to create a solution equivalent to 25 U/ml. botulinum was injected into the urethral sphincter along the urethral lumen at the 2, 5, 7, 9, and 12 o'clock positions. |
Follow up | 3 months |
Conflict of interest/source of funding | None |
Analysis
Follow-up issues: short follow-up period.
Study design issues: retrospective analysis; DV was classified into 3 groups according to the site of obstruction. Successful treatment outcome was defined as an improvement of VE by 10% and reported global response assessment by ≥1. global response assessment was reported as excellent (+3), markedly improved (+2), mildly improved (+1), no change (0) or worsened (−1), according to their perception of voiding after the botulinum injection. Changes in urodynamic parameters between the treatment success and failure groups and among three DV subgroups were assessed.
Key efficacy findings
Changes in urodynamic parameters between the treatment success and failure groups
Treatment successful^ % (n) | Treatment failure % (n) | ||||
67.9 (55/81) | 32.1 (26/81) | ||||
Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | P value | |
First sensation filling (ml) | 152.3 ± 79.5 | 150.4 ± 94.3 | 119.2 ± 52.4 | 131.7 ± 105.6 | 0.652 |
Full sensation (ml) | 225.2 ± 97.0 | 206.9 ± 102.8 | 195.4 ± 67.7 | 173.1 ± 125.9 | 0.910 |
Urge sensation (ml) | 257.8 ± 107.6 | 232.1 ± 119.9 | 226.0 ± 82.6 | 192.8 ± 136.3 | 0.839 |
Pdet (cmH2O) | 59.9 ± 38.8 | 44.4 ± 33.6* | 51.2 ± 36.0 | 36.2 ± 35.7 | 0.959 |
Compliance | 60.9 ± 52.8 | 64.2 ± 63.8 | 69.6 ± 84.7 | 57.3 ± 61.2 | 0.526 |
Qmax (mL/s) | 8.51 ± 6.21 | 8.83 ± 8.19 | 7.53 ± 4.72 | 4.85 ± 4.33 | 0.254 |
Volume (ml) | 146.2 ± 108.2 | 160.1 ± 140.7 | 126.5 ± 87.1 | 82.9 ± 73.4 | 0.185 |
PVR (mL) | 206.0 ± 137.5 | 132.6 ± 156.1* | 195.3 ± 101.6 | 243.3 ± 239.2 | 0.032 |
CBC (ml) | 352.2 ± 145.2 | 292.6 ± 136.9 * | 321.9 ± 116.6 | 326.2 ± 215.4 | 0.185 |
VE | 42.7 ± 28.3 | 58.2 ± 36.8 * | 40.3 ± 27.4 | 34.3 ± 32.4 | 0.057 |
Bladder outlet obstruction index | 42.9 ± 41.8 | 26.7 ± 39.5 * | 36.1 ± 37.4 | 26.5 ± 32.8 | 0.630 |
Data are presented as mean±SD; * statistically significant difference between baseline and follow up.
^defined as an improvement of VE by 10% and reported global response assessment by ≥1.
Lower urinary tract symptoms before and after treatment among the 3 DV subgroups
Lower urinary tract symptoms | Total % (n=81)^^ | Bladder neck dysfunction and DV 8.6% (7/81) | Midurethral DV 67.9% (55/81) | Distal urethral DV 23.5% (19/81) | ||||
Baseline | Follow-up^^ | Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | |
Storage symptoms | 70.4 (57/81) | 50.6 (41/81) | 71.4 (5/7) | 42.9 (3/7) | 72.7 (40/55) | 54.5 (30/55) | 63.2 (12/19) | 42.1 (8/19) |
Frequency/urgency/nocturia | 19 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 |
Urge incontinence | 38 | 24 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 20 | 4 | 2 |
Voiding symptoms | 87.7 (71/81) | 42 (34/81) | 85.7 (6/7) | 28.6 (2/7) | 87.3 (48/55) | 38.2 (21/55) | 89.5 (17/19) | 57.9 (11/19) |
Difficulty urination | 67 | 34 | 5 | 2 | 45 | 21 | 17 | 11 |
Urinary retention | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Painful symptoms | 13.6 (11/81) | 4.9 (4/81) | 14.3 (1/7) | 0 | 9.1 (5/55) | 3.6 (2/55) | 0 | 0 |
Bladder pain | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Micturition pain | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
^^ between 1 to 3 months after injection.
Key safety findings
% (n) | |
Haematuria (mild, resolved in 3 days) | 6.2 (5/81) |
Difficulty in urination (mild resolved in 3 days after treatment) | 8.6 (7/81) |
Study 5 Panicker JN (2016)
Study type | Case series |
---|---|
Country | UK |
Recruitment period | 2009-2012 |
Study population and number | N= 10 women with a primary disorder of urethral sphincter relaxation (Fowler's syndrome) with impaired voiding (n=5) or complete urinary retention (n=5) |
Age | mean age 40 (25–65) years, all women |
Patient selection criteria | Inclusion criteria: patients with a diagnosis of Fowler's syndrome (elevated UPP, sphincter volume, and abnormal EMG) Exclusion criteria: urological and neurological causes for voiding dysfunction; a history of previous urethral surgery, neurological disease, pregnancy, current UTI, and those taking anticoagulants. |
Technique | After 2% lidocaine injection, 100 units of botulinum (dissolved in 2ml saline) was injected into the external urethral sphincter on either side under EMG guidance. This was done as an outpatient procedure. |
Follow up | 10 weeks |
Conflict of interest/source of funding | No conflicts of interest. Study partly funded from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Urology foundation, and In Comb project. Allergan provided botulinum injections. |
Analysis
Follow-up issues: short follow-up period; patients were reviewed at 1, 4 and 10 weeks.
Study design issues: small pilot study in one centre. Baseline symptoms were assessed using the IPSS questionnaire, and Qmax and PVR were measured. The primary outcome was restoration of voiding for women with urinary retention and ≥50% improvement in Qmax in women with impaired voiding, at 10 weeks. The secondary outcomes measured were improvements in PVR and IPSS at 10 weeks.
Key efficacy findings
Number of patients analysed: 10
Patient reported symptom scores and VUD parameters
Baseline | 10 weeks | |
Mean IPSS score | 25.6 | 14.1 |
Mean 'bother' score on IPSS | 6.1 | 3.5 |
Mean Qmax (mL/s) in people who could void | 8.12 | 15.8 |
Mean Qmax in people with complete retention who could void spontaneously | 14.3 | |
Mean PVR (mL) | 260 | 89 |
Mean static UPP (cmH2O) | 113 | 90 (p=0.037) |
7 women chose to return for repeat injections.
Key safety findings
Unable to void (at week 10, continued with CSIC) | 1 |
UTI (in those with history of recurrent UTI) | 3 |
Study 6 Ou Y-C (2021)
Study type | Case series |
---|---|
Country | Taiwan |
Recruitment period | 2002-2019 |
Study population and number | N= 106 women receiving sphincteric botulinum-A injections for refractory EUS dysfunction. Indications: N=56 idiopathic EUS dysfunction (23 DV and 33 PRES) N=50 neurogenic EUS dysfunction (20 DSD, and 30 PRES) |
Age | mean age 61.8 ± 19.7 years; all women |
Patient selection criteria | Inclusion criteria: women who had received urethral sphincteric botulinum injections due to refractory voiding dysfunction caused by EUS dysfunction (diagnosed using image characteristics of VUDS during voiding phase) were retrospectively reviewed.. Exclusion criteria: patients with complicated clinical conditions such as a history of lower urinary tract reconstruction or urethra stenosis were excluded. |
Technique | botulinum-A injection (100 units) diluted in 5 mL of normal saline was injected into the urethral sphincter (5 injections were done circumferentially via a perineal route under general anaesthesia). |
Follow up | 1 month |
Conflict of interest/source of funding | No conflicts of interest. Study was supported by grants from the National Cheng Kung University Hospital. |
Analysis
Follow-up issues: short follow-up period; patients were reviewed at 1, 4 and 10 weeks.
Study design issues: retrospective analysis with small number of patients; urinary function assessments such as uroflowmetry, and VUDs were done according to the International Continence Society recommendations. Baseline and post treatment urinary parameters were assessed and subjective and objective outcomes were assessed 1 month after the injections. Subjective outcomes reported in the medical records were graded as "good" or "poor" according to the patient's perceptions of improvement (no validated questionnaires were used). Objective outcomes were graded as "good" if there was a 50% improvement in the Qmax or PVR after the injection. Other issues: data on patients with neurogenic EUS dysfunction (n=50) and mixed data on outcome predictors for both neurogenic and idiopathic sphincter dysfunction has not been presented here as it is out of the remit of this overview.
Key efficacy findings
Number of patients analysed: 106
Therapeutic outcomes and VUD parameters -idiopathic voiding dysfunction
DV % (n=23) | PRES % (n=33) | P value | ||
65 (15/23) | 64 (21/33) | 0.903 | ||
Good objective outcome | 74 (17/23) | 67 (22/33) | 0.562 | |
Urinary flow parameters | ||||
Qmax | Baseline | 7.3±3.2 | 7.4±5.4 | 0.980 |
Follow-up | 10.2 ** ±5.7 | 10.2 * ±7.7 | ||
VV | Baseline | 139.7 ±94.3 | 130.5 ±125.6 | 0.559 |
Follow-up | 174.7 ±104.7 | 190.9 ±124.6 | ||
PVR | Baseline | 160.8 ±98.5 | 188.1 ±147.5 | 0.657 |
Follow-up | 134.1 ±99.4 | 171.0 ±221.8 | ||
CBC | Baseline | 300.4 ±135.4 | 318.7 ±127.8 | 0.328 |
Follow-up | 308.8 ±118.9 | 360.4 ±203.5 | ||
VE | Baseline | 0.47 ±0.23 | 0.43 ±0.32 | 0.616 |
Follow-up | 0.59 ** ±0.30 | 0.60 ** ±0.32 | ||
VUDs parameters | ||||
First sensation of filling | Baseline | 117.7 ±89.6 | 164.4 ±74.3 | 0.086 |
Follow-up | 110.4 ±69.8 | 151.8 ± 72.4 | ||
Full sensation | Baseline | 191.7 ±90.9 | 250.3 ± 108.3 | 0.023 |
Follow-up | 163.3 ±77.4 | 251.7 ± 109.8 | ||
Urge sensation | Baseline | 228.9 ±111.9 | 286.3 ± 127.0 | 0.004 |
Follow-up | 180.3 ±83.4 | 293.8 ±114.1 | ||
Compliance | Baseline | 92.4 ±125.4 | 74.4 ±87.5 | 0.194 |
Follow-up | 44.5 ±35.6 | 65.5 ±66.4 | ||
Pdet | Baseline | 53.6 ±29.0 | 13.0 ±11.9 | 0.136 |
Follow-up | 51.1 ±31.2 | 11.9 ±15.4 | ||
Qmax | Baseline | 5.8 ±2.5 | 4.2 ±5.4 | 0.334 |
Follow-up | 6.3 ±4.3 6.7 ±6.6 | 6.7 ±6.6 | ||
BOOI | Baseline | 41.9 ±30.8 | 4.6 ±11.3 | 0.116 |
Follow-up | 38.5 ±33.0 | -1.5 ±15.9 | ||
PVR | Baseline | 217.2 ±128.2 | 314.3 ±248.6 | 0.118 |
Follow-up | 174.4 ±135.9 | 305.2 ±263.1 | ||
CBC | Baseline | 340.5 ±126.7 | 402.8 ±237.1 | 0.044 |
Follow-up | 303.9 ±141.6 | 430.0 ±198.3 | ||
VE | Baseline | 0.40 ±0.22 | 0.22 ±0.27 | 0.769 |
Follow-up | 0.47 ±0.33 | 0.39 ±0.38 |
*p <0.05 within group differences in changes after treatment.
**<0.01 within group differences in changes after treatment.
How are you taking part in this consultation?
You will not be able to change how you comment later.
You must be signed in to answer questions