Lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current literature on lower urinary tract electrical sensory assessment (LUTESA), with regard to current perception thresholds (CPTs) and sensory evoked potentials (SEPs), and to discuss the applied methods in terms of technical aspects, confounding factors, and potential for lower urinary tract (LUT) diagnostics. METHODS: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medline (PubMed), Embase and Scopus were searched on 13 October 2020. Meta-analyses were performed and methodological qualities of the included studies were defined by assessing risk of bias (RoB) as well as confounding. RESULTS: After screening 9925 articles, 80 studies (five randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 75 non-RCTs) were included, comprising a total of 3732 patients and 692 healthy subjects (HS). Of these studies, 61 investigated CPTs exclusively and 19 reported on SEPs, with or without corresponding CPTs. The recording of LUTCPTs and SEPs was shown to represent a safe and reliable assessment of LUT afferent nerve function in HS and patients. LUTESA demonstrated significant differences in LUT sensitivity between HS and neurological patients, as well as after interventions such as pelvic surgery or drug treatments. Pooled analyses showed that several stimulation variables (e.g. stimulation frequency, location) as well as patient characteristics might affect the main outcome measures of LUTESA (CPTs, SEP latencies, peak-to-peak amplitudes, responder rate). RoB and confounding was high in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data show that CPT and SEP recordings are valuable tools to more objectively assess LUT afferent nerve function. LUTESA complements already established diagnostics such as urodynamics, allowing a more comprehensive patient evaluation. The high RoB and confounding rate was related to inconsistency and inaccuracy in reporting rather than the technique itself. LUTESA standardization and well-designed RCTs are crucial to implement LUTESA as a clinical assessment tool.

Intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections for refractory neurogenic detrusor overactivity incontinence: do we need urodynamic investigation for outcome assessment?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if urinary continence in patients with refractory neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) incontinence after intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections is sufficient for appropriate outcome assessment or if urodynamic investigation (UDI) is needed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A consecutive series of 148 patients undergoing intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections for refractory NDO incontinence were prospectively evaluated. Patients underwent UDI before and at 6 weeks after onabotulinumtoxinA injections. The primary outcome was the prevalence of maximum storage detrusor pressure (Pdetmax storage) of >40 cmH2 O in continent patients at 6 weeks after treatment. The secondary outcomes were treatment effects on other clinical and video-urodynamic variables. RESULTS: At 6 weeks after intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections, 98 of the 148 patients (66%) with NDO incontinence were continent. Of these patients, 18 (18%, confidence interval 12-27%) had a Pdetmax storage of >40 cmH2 O. Gender, underlying neurological disorder, and high Pdetmax storage before treatment appear to increase the risk of poor urodynamic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary continence is not sufficient for outcome assessment after intradetrusor onabotulinumtoxinA injections, as high intravesical pressures threatening the upper urinary tract may be missed in a relevant proportion of continent patients. Therefore, we strongly recommend UDI as a routine part of the follow-up.

Sensory function assessment of the human male lower urinary tract using current perception thresholds.

AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility and reliability of current perception threshold (CPT) measurement for sensory assessment of distinct locations in the male lower urinary tract (LUT). METHODS: Twelve male subjects (>18 years) without LUT symptoms or medical comorbidities were eligible. CPTs were determined twice (interval: 7-20 days) at the bladder dome, trigone and the proximal, membranous, and distal urethra. Square wave electrical stimulation of 3 Hz/0.2 ms and 0.5 Hz/1 ms was applied using a transurethral 8F catheter placed under fluoroscopic control. Bladder volume was kept constant (60 mL) using a second 10F catheter. Repetitive measurements and reliability were assessed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The ANOVA revealed significant main effects for stimulation site (P = 0.008) and type of stimulation (P < 0.001) with lower CPTs for 0.5 Hz/1 ms compared to 3 Hz/0.2 ms. There was no significant effect for visit number (P = 0.061). CPTs were higher for bladder dome than for proximal (0.5 Hz/1 ms: P = 0.022; 3 Hz/0.2 ms: P = 0.022) and distal urethra (0.5 Hz/1 ms: P = 0.026; 3 Hz/0.2 ms: P = 0.030). Reliability of CPT measurements was excellent to good (ICC = 0.67-0.96) except for the bladder dome (5 Hz/1 ms: ICC = 0.45; 3 Hz/0.2 ms: ICC = 0.20) and distal urethra (3 Hz/0.2 ms: ICC = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: CPTs can be reliably detected at different LUT locations. However, alert and compliant subjects are essential. CPTs of LUT may become a complementary assessment method providing information on responsiveness and sensitivity of afferent LUT nerves. This is especially relevant for urethral afferents, which are not covered by standard urodynamic investigations. Neurourol. Urodynam. 36:469-473, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.