臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究目的：
探討恥骨陰道吊帶術(Pubovaginal Slingplasty; 簡稱PVS)和改良型Burch懸吊術(Modified Burch Colposuspension; 簡稱MBC)在手術前和手術後之尿道壓力檢查圖檢查(urethral pressure profilometry)之差異和作用的不同。

研究設計與方法：
本實驗為描述性研究(descriptive study)，本篇研究共收集63位曾接受尿失禁手術成功的病患，術後病患最少在門診定期追蹤兩年以上而且沒有併發症者。 其中38位是在1998年之前接受MBC手術用以穩定膀胱頸(bladder neck)和陰道前壁。 另外25位是在1998-2000年之間接受PVS手術用以提升尿道近端的背墊效應(backstop effect)。 比較手術前和手術後患者的尿道壓力圖(urethral pressure profile)變化。

利用統計假說檢定(statistical analysis test)來分析處理：
HO：恥骨陰道吊帶術(PVS)的尿道壓力檢查參數(urethral pressure profilometry parameters)與改良型Burch懸吊術(MBC)的尿 道壓力檢查參數(urethral pressure profilometry parameters)值 在術前與術後是相同。
HA：恥骨陰道吊帶術(PVS)的尿道壓力檢查參數(urethral pressure profilometry parameters)與改良型Burch懸吊術(MBC)的尿 道壓力檢查參數(urethral pressure profilometry parameters)值 在術前與術後不相同。

使用SPSS進行統計分析：
1. 獨立連續性的資料：用雙尾t檢定(two-tailed t test)和配對t檢定(paired t test)來比較手術結果(outcome)。
2. 統計上的顯著差異(statistical significance)為p-value < 0.05。

研究結果：
63位曾接受尿失禁手術成功的病患中，38位是行MBC手術，其平均年齡45.5歲(range, 31-61)，另外25位是行PVS手術其平均年齡52.5歲(range, 32-70)。 兩組的平均年齡和產次並無明顯差異。
兩組術後的尿道壓力傳導比率(pressure transmission ratio; 簡稱PTR)都明顯增加。 MBC組的病患其尿道壓力傳導比率(PTR)增加的位置在尿道四等分段(Quarter; Q)的第1,2,3段(Q1,2,3)。 然而，在PVS組病患尿道壓力傳導比率(PTR)只有在尿道的Q3位置才有明顯的增加。 尿道閉鎖壓力(urethral closure pressure; UCP)在MBC組有明顯上升，但在PVS組就沒有顯著的升高。

研究結論：
研究結果顯示恥骨陰道吊帶術(PVS)和改良型Burch懸吊術(MBC)其作用在尿道上的位置可以從尿道壓力圖檢查(urethral pressure profilometry)表現位置不同而得到證實。 這兩種手術對於治療尿失禁的作用機轉是不一樣的。

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pre-operative and post-operative difference effects on the urethral pressure profilometry in pubovaginal slingplasty and modified Burch colposuspension procedures.

DESIGN: This is a descriptive study of urodynamic parameter and urethral pressure profilometry before and after operation. All the patients were followed at least 24 months after surgery.

METHODS: A total of 63 patients with successful anti-incontinence surgery were recruited to this study. Thirty-eight women had received a modified Burch colposuspension (MBC) before 1998, to stabilize the bladder neck and the anterior vaginal wall. Twenty-five cases had undergone autologous pubovaginal slingplasty (PVS) procedure to elevate the backstop effect on the proximal urethra from 1998 to 2000. We compared the changes in parameters of the urethral pressure profilometry between these two groups immediately before and six months and 24 months after the operation. A student t test was used for statistical analysis and p<0.05 was considered the statistical significant level.

RESULTS: The mean age of the patients at PVS group was 52.5 years (range 32-70 years) and 45.5 years (range 31-61 years) at MBC group. Age and parity were not significant difference between two groups. The pressure transmission ratio (PTR) of the urethra increased significantly, in both groups, in the postoperative evaluation. Patients who had the MBC procedure showed an increased PTR at quarter (Q) 1, Q2 and Q3 of the urethra. However, in the PVS group, the PTR increased only at Q3. The urethral closure pressure elevated significantly after the MBC procedure, but there were no significant changes after a PVS procedure.

CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that differences effects on the urethral pressure profilometry are evident in the PVS and MBC procedures. These two procedures should be considered in different anti-incontinence effect.

目錄 1
中文摘要 2
英文摘要 5
縮寫表 7
第一章 研究背景與研究動機 8
第二章 文獻回顧 10
前言 10
第一節•尿道壓力圖回顧 12
第二節•定義 13
第三節•尿道壓力圖的測量方法 15
第四節•休息狀態尿道壓力圖 19
第五節•用力狀態尿道壓力圖 21
第六節•尿道壓力圖各變項的相關解說 24
第七節•PTR的角色和臨床應用 28
第三章 研究設計與實施 30
手術步驟 31
Burch手術法 31
恥骨陰道吊帶術 32
腹部層面 32
陰道層面 32
第四章 研究結果 34
第五章 研究結果之討論 36
第六章 參考文獻 46

1.Leach GE, Dmochowski RR, Appell RA, Blaivas JG, Hadley HR, Luber KM, et al: Female stress urinary incontinence clinical guidelines panel summary report on surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 1997;158:875-880
2.Chaikin DC, Rosenthal JR, Blaivas JG: Pubovaginal fascial sling for all types of stress urinary incontinence: long-term analysis. J Urol 1998;160:1312-1316.
3.Langer R, Lippshitz Y, Halperin R, Pansky M, Bukovsky I and Sherman D: Long-Term (10-15year) Follow-up after Burch Colposuspension for Urinary Stress Incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 2001;12:323-327
4.Ulmsten U, Petros P: Intravaginal slingplasty (IVS): An ambulatory surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1995;29:75-82
5.Delancey JOL: Structural support of the urethra as it relates to stress urinary incontinence: The hammock hypothesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:1713-1723
6.McGuire EJ, Lytton B, Pepe V, et al: Stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1976;47:255-264
7.McGuire EJ, Lytton B: Pubovaginal sling procedure for stress incontinence. J Urol 2002;167:112-1123
8.Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al: The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardization Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21(2):167-78.
9.Walters MD, Karram MM: Urogynecology and Reconstrctive Pelvic Surgery. Second Edition; 1999
10.陳進典，蘇聰賢，林隆堯: 婦科泌尿學精解. 1997
11.Urodynamic, ed 2, London, 1997, Springer
12.Rud T: urethral pressure profile in continent women from childhood to old age, Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1980; 59:331-335,
13.Susset J and Plante P: Studies of Female Urethral Pressure profile. Part II. Urethral pressure profile in female incontinence. J. Urol 1980;123:70-74
14.Bump RC, Copeland Jr, Hurt G, Fantl JA: dynamic urethral pressure/profilometry pressure transmission ratio determinations in stress-incontinent and stress-continent subjects. Am J obstet Gynecol September 1988; 749-755
15.Kooning PP, Bergmean A, Ballard CA: Low Urethral Pressure and Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women: risk factor for failed retropubic surgical procedures. Urology 1990 Sep;36(3):245-8
16.McGuire EJ: Urodynamic Evaluation of Stress Incontinence. Urol Clin North Am 1995 Aug;22(3):551-5.
17.Lose G: Urethral pressure measurement. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (suppl 166) 1997;76:39-42
18.Stanton SL, Cardozo LD: Results of the colposuspension operation for incontinence and prolapse. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1979;86:693-697
19.Blaivas JG: Key to successful pubovaginal sling surgery. Contemp OB/GYN 1995;46-51
20.20Nguyen A, Mahoney S, Minar L, Ghoniem G: A simple objective method of adjusting sling tension. J Urol 1999;162:1674-1676
21.Stanton SL: Some reflections on tension free vaginal tape - A new surgical procedure for treatment of female urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J (suppl) 2001; S1-S2
22.Hilton P: A clinical and urodynamic study comparing the Stamey bladder neck suspension and suburethral sling procedures in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1989;96:221-225
23.Hilton P, Stanton SL: A clinical and urodynamic assessment of the Burch colposuspension for genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1983;90:934-939
24.Eriksen BC, Hagen B, Eik-Nes SH, Molne K, Mjolnerod OK, Romslo I: Long-tem effectiveness of the Burch colposuspension in female urinary stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1990;69:45-50
25.van Geelen JM, Theeuwes AGM, Eskes TKAB, Martina CB, et al: The clinical and urodynamic effects of anterior vaginal repair and Burch colposuspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;159: 137-145
26.Su TH, Wang KG, Hsu CY, Wei HJ, Hong BK: Prospective comparison of laparoscopic and traditional colposuspension in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:576-582