Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 323–326 | Cite as

The relationship of body mass index to intra-abdominal pressure as measured by multichannel cystometry

  • K. L. Noblett
  • J. K. Jensen
  • D. R. Ostergard
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of the study was to identify the possible relationship between body mass index and intra-abdominal pressure as measured by multichannel cystometry. A retrospective chart review of patients presenting for urodynamic evaluation between January 1995 and March 1996 was carried out. Variables identified included weight, height, intra-abdominal pressure and intravesical pressure as recorded on multi-channel cystometrogram at first sensation in the absence of detrusor activity. Body mass index was defined as weight in kilograms divided by height in square meters. Intra-abdominal pressure was measured intravaginally except in those cases of complete procidentia or severe prolapse, where it was measured transrectally. Adequate data were available on 136 patients. The mean age was 60.6 years (range 30–91); mean body mass index was 27.7 kg/m2 (range 12.7–47.7); and mean intra-abdominal pressure was 27.5 cmH2O (range 9.0–48.0). A strong association between intra-abdominal pressure and body mass index was demonstrated, with a Pearson coefficient correlation value of 0.76 (P<0.0001). Strong correlation was still demonstrated when those patients who had had the intra-abdominal pressure measured transrectally were separated out, thus eliminating any possible confounding factors between measurements of intra-abdominal pressure measured transvaginally versus transrectally. In addition a strong correlation between intravesical pressure and body mass index was also demonstrated, with a Pearson coefficient correlation value of 0.71 (P<0.0001). Of the 136 patients, 65 (47.8%) were ultimately diagnosed as having genuine stress urinary incontinence (GSUI), 35 (25.7%) with GSUI and a low-pressure urethra (maximum urethral closure pressure of less than 20 cmH2O), and 18 (13.2%) with detrusor instability. The remaining 13.2% had severe prolapse. Our data demonstrate a significant correlation between body mass index and intra-abdominal pressure. These findings suggest that obesity may stress the pelvic floor secondary to chronic state of increased pressure, and may represent a mechanism which supports the widely held belief that obesity is a common factor in the development and recurrence of GSUI.

Keywords

Body mass index Genuine stress urinary incontinence Obesity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yarnell JW, Voyle GJ, Sweetnam PM, Milbank J, Richard CJ, Stephensen TP. Factors with urinary incontinence in women.J Epidemiol Commun Health 1982;36:58–63Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Warrell D. Anterior repair. In: Stanton SL, Tanago EA, eds. Surgery of female incontinence, 2nd edn. London: Springer-Verlag, 1986;77–85Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bump RC, Sugerman HJ, Fantl AJ, McLish DK. Obesity and lower urinary tract function in women: effect of surgically induced weight loss.Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:392–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deitel M, Stone E, Kassam HA, Wilk EF, Sutherland DJA. Gynecologic-obstetric changes after loss of massive excess weight following bariatric surgery.J Am Coll Nutr 1988;7:147–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dwyer PL, Lee ETC, Hay DM. Obesity and urinary incontinence in women.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:91–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolbl H, Riss P. Obesity and stress urinary incontinence: significance of indicies of relative weight.Urol Int 1988;43:7–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burgio KL, Matthews KA, Engel BT. Prevalence, incidence and correlates of urinary incontinence in healthy middle-aged women.J Urol 1991;146:1255–1259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vellas B, Seduilh M, Alberede JL. Urinary incontinence, epidemiological considerations.Dan Med Bull 1989;36(Suppl 8):5–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mommsen S, Foldspang A. Body mass index and adult female urinary incontinence.World J Urol 1994;12:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nygaard IE, Thompson FL, Svengalis SL. Albright JP. Urinary incontinence in elite nulliparous atheletes.Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:183–187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richard PA. Use of vaginal pressure measurements in urodynamic testing.Obstet Gynecol 1995;66:581–584Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhatia NN, Bergman A. urodynamic appraisal of vaginal versus rectal pressure recording as indications of intra abdominal pressure.Urology 1986;27:482–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vereecken RC. Intravaginal pressure recording as an alternative to intrarectal pressure monitoring.Urology 1987;19:225–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    James ED, Niblett PG, MacNaughton JA, Shaldon C. The vagina as an alternative to the rectum in measuring intra-abdominal pressure during urodynamic investigations.Br J Urol 1987;60:212–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Al-Taher H, Suthest JR, Richmond DH, Brown MC. Vaginal pressure as an index of intra-abdominal pressure during urodynamic evaluation.Br J Urol 1987;59:529–532PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wall LL, Hewitt JK, Helms MJ. Are vaginal and rectal pressures equivalent approximations of one another for the purpose of performing subtracted cystometry?Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:488–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. L. Noblett
    • 1
  • J. K. Jensen
    • 1
  • D. R. Ostergard
    • 1
  1. 1.Long Beach Memorial Medical CenterLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations