摘要目的 探讨动态尿动力学监测(AUM)在女性压力性尿失禁(SUI)诊断中的价值.方法 在我院门诊选取2011年10月至2012年6月临床诊断为SUI的女性患者40例,按其临床症状程度分为轻度、中度、重度三部分,利用随机数字表将每一部分患者随机分为数量相等的两部分,各入选为AUM组和传统尿动力学检查(CUD)组,分别行AUM和CUD,得出尿动力学参数进行比较.行尿动力学检查前患者完成ICI-Q-SF问卷表,并得出ICI-Q-SF评分. 结果 两组患者年龄、病程、产次、ICI-Q-SF评分比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).AUM组和CUD组分别检出SUI 11例和2例(P＜0.05),检查过程中未发现异常者分别为3例和15例(P＜0.05),AUM组患者的SUI检出率明显高于CUD组,而且假阴性率显著低于CUD组(x2=16.840,P=0.001).AUM组中有3例和1例患者分别诊断为逼尿肌过度活动(DO)和混合型尿失禁,CUD组为1例和2例,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05). 结论 AUM过程中检测到SUI的阳性率显著高于CUD,相比于CUD较高的假阴性率,AUM在女性SUI的诊断中能给予更合理的尿动力学解释.

abstractsObjective To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conventional urodynamic (CUD) and ambulatory urodynamic monitoring (AUM) in diagnosis of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI).Methods Forty women with SUI were prospectively enrolled and performed urodynamic studies after the ICI-Q-SF questionnaire.According to clinical symptoms,patients were divided into three groups:mild,moderate and severe group.Half patients in each groups performed CUD exam,and the other half of patients performed AUM exam.And two micturition cycles were recorded during AUM.Results There were no significant differrences in age,pregnant production times and ICI-Q-SF score between two groups.Three patients with SUI symptoms had negative findings in AUM group and 15 patients in CUD group (P＜0.05).Among women with SUI,1 1 patients had positive findings in AUM group and 2 patients in CUD group (P＜ 0.05).Conclusion AUM can provide objective evidence for the majority of patients with SUI than CUD.