Can alpha-blocker therapy be an alternative to biofeedback for dysfunctional voiding and urinary retention? A prospective study.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Traditional treatment of dysfunctional voiding in children with urinary retention involves retraining the pelvic floor muscles using biofeedback. Alpha-blockers are reported to also be effective in children with urinary retention and dysfunctional voiding. We compared the efficacy of biofeedback and alpha-blockers for dysfunctional voiding and urinary retention in terms of residual urine volume and urge incontinence episodes, mean flow rates and urinary tract infections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 28 patients with a mean age of 6.25 years (range 4 to 10) presented with symptoms of urinary incontinence, urgency and urinary tract infections without anatomic and neurogenic causes of urinary retention. All patients had increased post-void residual (PVR) urine volume (mean 59 ml, 32% of age expected capacity [AEC]). The biofeedback group consisted of 16 children (mean age 6.5 years) and the alpha-blocker group consisted of 12 children (mean age 5.9 years). Both groups were also on continued timed voiding, constipation treatment and anticholinergics, which had been used for at least the last 6 months. Biofeedback (median 10, range 6 to 16 sessions) and doxazosin (0.5 to 2 mg) were administered. At 3 and 6 months incontinence episodes, urinary tract infections, mean urinary flow rates, PVR and parental satisfaction grades (1 to 10) were reevaluated. Six refractory cases were started on alpha-blockers and biofeedback, and reevaluated after 1 month and 3 months. RESULTS: Pretreatment mean PVR was 54 ml (30% of AEC), and mean posttreatment PVR was 21 ml (12% of AEC) and 9 ml (5% of AEC) at 3 and 6 months in the biofeedback group (p <0.05). Pretreatment mean PVR was 64 ml (38% of AEC), and posttreatment mean PVR was 17 ml (12% of AEC) and 13 ml (8% of AEC) at 3 and 6 months in the alpha-blocker group (p <0.05). There was no statistical difference in posttreatment PVR between the 2 groups (p >0.05). High PVR persisted in 4 (25%) biofeedback cases and in 2 (16%) alpha-blocker cases. Complete improvement in urge incontinence episodes occurred in 10 (62.5%) and 7 (70%) children in the biofeedback and alpha-blocker groups, respectively. In therapy responsive children parental satisfaction was higher with alpha-blocker than with biofeedback (9.2 vs 7.9, p <0.05). Refractory high PVR decreased significantly after combination treatment with biofeedback and alpha-blocker in 5 of 6 children (mean 80 ml, 35% of AEC vs mean 15 ml, 7% of AEC). No drug related side effect was reported in the alpha-blocker group. CONCLUSIONS: Alpha-blocker therapy seems to be a viable alternative to biofeedback in dysfunctional voiding in children with urinary retention to improve bladder emptying. Combination treatment (biofeedback and alpha-blockers) can be used as additional therapy in refractory cases.