Differences in bladder neck angles between female patients with overactive bladders and healthy peers

The aim of this study was to compare the differences between angles of bladder neck in girls with overactive bladder and those in healthy ones using transabdominal ultrasonography. This study consists of 28 girls complicated with overactive bladder (Group I) and 40 healthy girls (Group II). The ante...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia Vol. 96; no. 2; p. 12294
Main Authors: Yoldas, Mehmet, Keskin, Mehmet Zeynel
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Italy PAGEPress Publications 27-06-2024
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The aim of this study was to compare the differences between angles of bladder neck in girls with overactive bladder and those in healthy ones using transabdominal ultrasonography. This study consists of 28 girls complicated with overactive bladder (Group I) and 40 healthy girls (Group II). The anteroposterior vesical wall angle (APVA), urethroposterior vesical wall angle (UPVA), urethroanterior vesical wall angle (UAVA), thickness of bladder mucosa, distance of urethral orifices, and distance between ureter and urethra orifice were measured in supine position using transabdominal ultrasonography. The results were compared between the two groups. UAVA in Group I was higher than Group II (135.2 ± 12.2 mm vs. 117.4 ± 14.0 mm; p = 0.009). UPVA was smaller in Group I than Group II (114.6 ± 19.5 mm vs. 135.3 ± 16.5 mm; p = 0.014). The distance between the ureteral orifices was 31.8 ± 8.5 mm in Group I and 17.0 ± 4.1 mm in Group II (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of APVA, bladder mucosa thickness, and distance between ureter and urethra orifice (p > 0.05). Bladder neck dynamics may play an important role in overactive bladder pathophysiology due to differences in UPVA, UAV, and location of ureteral orifices in this patient population.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1124-3562
2282-4197
2282-4197
DOI:10.4081/aiua.2024.12294