Premium
Can we, and do we need to, define bladder neck hypermobility and intrinsic sphincteric deficiency?: ICI‐RS 2011
Author(s) -
Smith Phillip P.,
van Leijsen Sanne A.L.,
Heesakkers John P.F.A.,
Abrams Paul,
Smith Anthony R.B.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
neurourology and urodynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1520-6777
pISSN - 0733-2467
DOI - 10.1002/nau.22220
Subject(s) - medicine , hypermobility (travel) , physical medicine and rehabilitation , physical therapy
Aims Bladder neck hypermobility (BNH, also called urethral hypermobility), and intrinsic sphincteric deficiency (ISD) are terms frequently used in the clinical evaluation and management of stress urinary incontinence, and as subject qualifiers in clinical research. The terms also infer pathophysiologic concepts, as BNH and ISD appear to represent two different aspects of failure of the continence mechanism. Unfortunately, neither term is well‐defined, and the various clinical and urodynamic characterizations of these terms do not correlate well with one another. Methods The value of these concepts and these specific terms was debated at the ICI‐RS meeting, Bristol, UK, June 2011. Two clinicians were asked to take opposing viewpoints, with three weeks lead‐time prior to the meeting. Each discussant presented one viewpoint, “for” or “against,” followed by a brief discussion to review the presentations. Results The consensus was that, while we currently cannot adequately define these terms, there is a need to develop terminology employing these concepts. Conclusions Terminology should permit improved definition of the sphincteric mechanism, allow individual patient characterization and serve as useful waypoints in treatment decisions. Neurourol. Urodynam. 31:309–312, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.