Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 640   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size

Table of Contents
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 249-252  

Patient treatment preferences for symptomatic refractory urodynamic idiopathic detrusor overactivity

Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, W1G 8PH, UK

Date of Submission21-Dec-2016
Date of Acceptance27-Mar-2017
Date of Web Publication10-Jul-2017

Correspondence Address:
Tamsin J Greenwell
Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, 16-18 Westmoreland Street, London, W1G 8PH
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_172_16

PMID: 28794591

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: There is a multiplicity of treatments currently available for patients with symptomatic refractory urodynamic idiopathic detrusor overactivity (SRU IDO). We have assessed patient treatment preferences and their outcomes over a 12-month period from January 1 2009 to December 31 2009.
Patients and Methods: A retrospective database of all patients with SRU IDO was reviewed for patient demographics, treatment preference, and outcome. All patients attending for treatment in the time period were offered: no further treatment, repeat bladder training ± antimuscarinic (BT ± AM), acupuncture, intravesical botulinum toxin injection, sacral neuromodulation (SNM), clam cystoplasty ± Mitrofanoff channel formation, and ileal conduit.
Statistical Analysis Used: Statistical analysis of outcomes was done by Chi–square test, and statistical significance was determined as P< 0.05.
Results: A total of 217 patients with SRU IDO underwent primary treatment in this time period, with a median age of 56 years and follow-up for a minimum of 12 months' posttreatment to determine outcome. No patients opted for any further treatment or an ileal conduit. The majority of patients opted for intravesical botulinum toxin injections and SNM with similar success rates (approximately 70%). A small number of patients decided to have nonsurgical interventions (BT ± AM or acupuncture) and had a broadly similar success rate (50%). A minority opted for clam cystoplasty ± Mitrofanoff channel formation – this group reported the highest success rate at 86%.
Conclusions: Treatment options in SRU IDO are diverse, with the majority of patients opting for minimally invasive surgery. Clinicians should be familiar with all treatment options for management of SRU IDO.

Keywords: Detrusor overactivity, patient preference, treatment

How to cite this article:
Fontaine CL, Rudd I, Pakzad M, Hamid R, Ockrim JL, Greenwell TJ. Patient treatment preferences for symptomatic refractory urodynamic idiopathic detrusor overactivity. Urol Ann 2017;9:249-52

How to cite this URL:
Fontaine CL, Rudd I, Pakzad M, Hamid R, Ockrim JL, Greenwell TJ. Patient treatment preferences for symptomatic refractory urodynamic idiopathic detrusor overactivity. Urol Ann [serial online] 2017 [cited 2022 Jan 23];9:249-52. Available from: https://www.urologyannals.com/text.asp?2017/9/3/249/210037

   Introduction Top

Idiopathic detrusor overactivity (IDO) is defined by the International Continence Society as “the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. These contractions, which may be spontaneous or provoked, are unable to be suppressed by the patient. They may take a wave form (phasic), of variable duration and amplitude, on the cystometrogram. Urgency is generally associated in women with normal bladder sensation though contractions may be asymptomatic or may be interpreted as a normal desire to void. Incontinence may or may not occur.”[1] It is recognized as a chronic syndrome with no current ideal treatment or cure.[2] IDO is a distressing condition with significant emotional burden placing restriction on activities of daily living.[3]

Current guidelines for the management of patients with symptomatic IDO suggest a multiplicity of treatments.[2],[4],[5] Treatment options are generally divided into first, second, third, and fourth line; although there is no requirement for patients to go through each treatment group in a step-wise manner. Initially, patients with IDO are managed with lifestyle and/or behavioral changes, such as bladder training (BT) – this is usually followed by antimuscarinic (AM) therapy if conservative management fails.[2],[4],[5] AM therapy is often limited by lack of compliance due to intolerable side effects and low patient-defined success rates.[6]

Patients who fail conservative management and/or AM therapy are deemed to have symptomatic refractory urodynamic IDO (SRU IDO). Treatment options for SRU IDO include repetition of first-/second-line treatment, or third- and fourth-line options such as oral beta-agonist, percutaneous modulation techniques (acupuncture or percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation [PTNS]), intravesical botulinum toxin, sacral neuromodulation (SNM), augmentation (clam cystoplasty ± Mitrofanoff), and ileal conduit.[2],[4],[5],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14]

At our center, patients with SRU IDO are offered all treatment options and treatment is based on patient preference. We assessed patient treatment preferences and their outcomes over a 12-month period between January and December 2009. During this time period, PTNS and beta-agonist treatment options were not available within the UK.

   Patients and Methods Top

A retrospective database of all patients attending with SRU IDO between January and December 2009 was reviewed for patient demographics, treatment preference, and outcome. All patients attending for treatment in this time period were offered treatment choices of: no treatment, repeat BT ± AM therapy (BT ± AM), acupuncture, intravesical botulinum toxin injection, SNM, clam cystoplasty ± Mitrofanoff channel formation, or ileal conduit. SNM at this time was performed as a percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) for the assessment of benefit followed by a one-stage insertion of SNM device in those with a successful PNE. We have since moved to a staged procedure with the initial first-stage tined lead placement (FSTL) for evaluation with a second-stage placement of battery in those having successful evaluation and removal of FSTL in those who do not.

Institution and National Society-approved patient information leaflets were provided in conjunction with discussion with a clinician in the outpatient clinic setting. Treatment was based on patient preference, and all patients were followed up for a minimum of 12 months' posttreatment to determine success. Successful outcome was determined by the patients' binary delineation of outcome as a success or a failure and their wish to continue on that treatment.

Statistical analysis of outcomes was by Chi-square test, and statistical significance was determined as P< 0.05.

   Results Top

A total of 217 patients (median age: 56 years, range: 18–82 years) with SRU IDO underwent primary treatment in this time period. About 73 of these patients were men (median age: 55 years, range: 20–80 years) and 210 were new referrals.

The majority of patients opted for minimally invasive surgical treatment with intravesical botulinum toxin injection or SNM, with equivalent success rates in those patients having a successful PNE [Figure 1]. A smaller number opted for nonsurgical treatments with moderate success. The minority opted for open surgery with clam cystoplasty ± Mitrofanoff, but appeared to have the most successful outcomes [Table 1]. No patients opted for no further treatment or an ileal conduit. The more invasive the treatment, the more likely the chance of a successful outcome [Figure 2].
Figure 1: Histogram of frequency of choice versus invasiveness

Click here to view
Figure 2: Histogram of effectiveness versus invasiveness

Click here to view
Table 1: Treatment choices and outcomes

Click here to view

   Discussion Top

Most patients opted for minimally invasive surgery. Current evidence suggests that minimally invasive surgery is equally as effective at improving IDO symptoms as compared to placebo or AM therapy, and both botulinum toxin and SNM have been given a Grade A recommendation for use in refractory detrusor overactivity.[2],[4],[5],[7],[14]

A minority of patients opted for repeat BT ± AM. This showed moderate success, as compared with minimally invasive surgery. Adherence and persistence with AM therapy is low in patients with IDO, perhaps suggesting that repeat AM therapy would not be beneficial in this patient group.[6] Recent literature has advocated discontinuing the concept of AM cycling because of a high dropout rate and no improvement in symptoms with the administration of multiple AMs.[15] In addition, although not approved for use at the time, the beta-agonist mirabegron is emerging as a safe and effective treatment of IDO and would now likely be offered to patients instead of/in addition to repeat AM therapy.[7]

The more invasive the treatment, the more likely the patient was to report a successful outcome. The improvement in outcome was only statistically significant when comparing acupuncture and intravesical botulinum toxin injections (P = 0.048). This is mainly related to a relative paucity of numbers in the BT and clam cystoplasty groups – meaning that, while trends can be commented upon and highlighted, statistical significance cannot be claimed.

Clam cystoplasty appears to have had the most successful outcome and is known to provide a good urodynamic improvement.[16] This is in keeping with many studies on the outcome of clam cystoplasty for SRU IDO,[12],[17],[18],[19] showing success in terms of control of urinary symptoms in 80%–95% of cases. However, long-term failure of cystoplasty due to persistence/recurrence of lower urinary tract symptoms may occur in some (42%–47%) of the patients with IDO.[20],[21] The risk of early and late complications including a small risk of malignancy must also be acknowledged.[22] There has been a decline in the number of augmentations performed for IDO in the recent years,[23] particularly with the advent of efficacious minimally invasive surgical treatment as well as most guidelines recommending its use only in those patients with severe refractory detrusor overactivity, and generally for patients with neurogenic, rather than idiopathic, detrusor overactivity.[2],[4],[5] It may be that those patients with the most severe symptoms of SRU IDO, in particular those with urge incontinence, have the most to gain.

IDO, and its treatment, presents a significant emotional and lifestyle burden to patients.[3] It has been suggested that patients do not necessarily choose the most effective treatment for SRU IDO, but the one that is tailored to their needs or lifestyle.[24] Minimally invasive treatment often requires repeated hospital attendance; acupuncture involves attendance at weekly sessions for 6 weeks and then monthly top-up sessions whereas PTNS involves weekly sessions for 12 weeks followed by 3–6 monthly top-up sessions. SNM is a two-stage procedure with need for re-intervention for exchange of battery for every 5–7 years, whereas intravesical botulinum toxin injection necessitates repeat procedures at 6–12 monthly intervals, notwithstanding the impact of possible side effects. In addition, at our center, there are significantly different waiting times for each treatment. Both lifestyle implications and immediacy of treatment have been shown to have a significant impact in patient preference in minimally invasive treatment for detrusor overactivity.[25] The incidence and perceived severity of treatment-related side effects also effects the choice of treatment.[26]

At present, there is no conclusive guideline in the management of SRU IDO. As clinicians, it is important that we should be familiar with all options available for the management of SRU IDO and engage in positive patient–clinician communication. This will enable accurate determination of disease symptom burden and treatment goals; allowing better matching of treatment to the individual patients and improved patient satisfaction.[27] Discontinuation of treatment, secondary to unmet expectations, is relatively high in patients with detrusor overactivity, and we must be realistic with patients regarding both risks and benefits of each treatment option to improve adherence and patient-defined success.[28] This has been evidenced previously where SNM preparedness improves patient-defined outcome regardless of the actual outcome [29] and where a dedicated botulinum toxin service has been associated with high patient satisfaction and positive patient experience.[30]

   Conclusions Top

While treatment options in IDO are diverse, the majority of patients with SRU IDO appear to opt for minimally invasive surgical treatment with intravesical botulinum toxin or SNM with equivalent patient-defined success rates. The most successful symptomatic outcomes are in those having clam cystoplasty ± Mitrofanoff; however, the minority of patients opt for this. Clinicians should be familiar with all treatment options for the management of SRU IDO to facilitate patients' choice of a treatment that is most suitable to them and therefore most likely to be adhered to and deemed successful.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29:4-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
Gormley EA, Lightner DJ, Burgio KL, Chai TC, Clemens JQ, Culkin DJ, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of overactive bladder (non-neurogenic) in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol 2012;188 6 Suppl: 2455-63.  Back to cited text no. 2
Maguire T, Doshani A, Mayne C, Slack M, Tincello D. Patients' experience and expectations of conservative management strategies, anti-muscarinics and treatment with intravesical onabotulinum toxin for overactive bladder – A qualitative interview study. Int J Urol Nurs 2015;10:68-77.  Back to cited text no. 3
Lucas MG, Bosch RJ, Burkhard FC, Cruz F, Madden TB, Nambiar AK, et al. EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 2012;62:1118-29.  Back to cited text no. 4
Invasive Treatments for Women with Urinary Incontinence and Detrusor Overactivity. NICE; c2015. Available from: http://www.pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/urinary-incontinence-in-women. [Last updated on 2015 Nov 11; Last cited on 2016 Jul 26].  Back to cited text no. 5
Dhaliwal P, Wagg A. Overactive bladder: Strategies to ensure treatment compliance and adherence. Clin Interv Aging 2016;11:755-60.  Back to cited text no. 6
Olivera CK, Meriwether K, El-Nashar S, Grimes CL, Chen CC, Orejuela F, et al. Nonantimuscarinic treatment for overactive bladder: A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:34-57.  Back to cited text no. 7
Wilson A, Jenks J, Greenwell T. A prospective review of medical acupuncture in the management of idiopathic detrusor overactivity. BJU Int 2012;109:32-9.  Back to cited text no. 8
Apostolidis A, Dasgupta P, Denys P, Elneil S, Fowler CJ, Giannantoni A, et al. Recommendations on the use of botulinum toxin in the treatment of lower urinary tract disorders and pelvic floor dysfunctions: A European consensus report. Eur Urol 2009;55:100-19.  Back to cited text no. 9
Herbison GP, Arnold EP. Sacral neuromodulation with implanted devices for urinary storage and voiding dysfunction in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(4):CD004202.  Back to cited text no. 10
Cho D, Lukan J, Uberoi P, Phillips T, Jellison F. Efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for refractory idiopathic overactive bladder at a military institution. Neurourol Urodyn 2016;35:S66.  Back to cited text no. 11
Venn SN, Mundy AR. Long-term results of augmentation cystoplasty. Eur Urol 1998;34 Suppl 1:40-2.  Back to cited text no. 12
Carmel ME, Goldman HB. Management of refractory overactive bladder. Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol 2012;7:605-13.  Back to cited text no. 13
Syan R, Brucker BM. Guideline of guidelines: Urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2016;117:20-33.  Back to cited text no. 14
Chancellor MB, Levanovich P, Rajaganapathy BR, Vereecke AJ. Optimum management of overactive bladder: Medication vs. Botox ® vs. InterStim ® vs. Urgent ® PC. Urol Pract 2014;1:7-12.  Back to cited text no. 15
Cheng KC, Kan CF, Chu PS, Man CW, Wong BT, Ho LY, et al. Augmentation cystoplasty: Urodynamic and metabolic outcomes at 10-year follow-up. Int J Urol 2015;22:1149-54.  Back to cited text no. 16
Blaivas JG, Weiss JP, Desai P, Flisser AJ, Stember DS, Stahl PJ. Long-term followup of augmentation enterocystoplasty and continent diversion in patients with benign disease. J Urol 2005;173:1631-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
Bramble FJ. The treatment of adult enuresis and urge incontinence by enterocystoplasty. Br J Urol 1982;54:693-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
Mundy AR, Stephenson TP. “Clam” ileocystoplasty for the treatment of refractory urge incontinence. Br J Urol 1985;57:641-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
Awad SA, Al-Zahrani HM, Gajewski JB, Bourque-Kehoe AA. Long-term results and complications of augmentation ileocystoplasty for idiopathic urge incontinence in women. Br J Urol 1998;81:569-73.  Back to cited text no. 20
Hasan ST, Marshall C, Robson WA, Neal DE. Clinical outcome and quality of life following enterocystoplasty for idiopathic detrusor instability and neurogenic bladder dysfunction. Br J Urol 1995;76:551-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
Greenwell TJ, Venn SN, Mundy AR. Augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int 2001;88:511-25.  Back to cited text no. 22
Biers SM, Venn SN, Greenwell TJ. The past, present and future of augmentation cystoplasty. BJU Int 2012;109:1280-93.  Back to cited text no. 23
Tubaro A, Puccini F, De Nunzio C. The management of overactive bladder: Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, sacral nerve stimulation, or botulinum toxin? Curr Opin Urol 2015;25:305-10.  Back to cited text no. 24
Balchandra P, Rogerson L. Women's perspective: Intra-detrusor botox versus sacral neuromodulation for overactive bladder symptoms after unsuccessful anticholinergic treatment. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:1059-64.  Back to cited text no. 25
Levy M, Ayaji A, Kim JH, Baxter ZC, Rodriguez L, Raz S, et al. Patient defined goals of care in treatment of medication refractory overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn 2014;33:180.  Back to cited text no. 26
Marschall-Kehrel D, Spinks J. The patient-centric approach: The importance of setting realistic treatment goals. Eur Urol Suppl 2011;10:23-7.  Back to cited text no. 27
Benner JS, Nichol MB, Rovner ES, Jumadilova Z, Alvir J, Hussein M, et al. Patient-reported reasons for discontinuing overactive bladder medication. BJU Int 2010;105:1276-82.  Back to cited text no. 28
Firoozi F, Gill B, Ingber MS, Moore CK, Rackley RR, Goldman HB, et al. Increasing patient preparedness for sacral neuromodulation improves patient reported outcomes despite leaving objective measures of success unchanged. J Urol 2013;190:594-7.  Back to cited text no. 29
Malde S, Dowson C, Fraser O, Watkins J, Khan MS, Dasgupta P, et al. Patient experience and satisfaction with Onabotulinum toxin A for refractory overactive bladder. BJU Int 2015;116:443-9.  Back to cited text no. 30


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]

  [Table 1]

This article has been cited by
1 Update on the management of overactive bladder
Christina Fontaine, Emma Papworth, John Pascoe, Hashim Hashim
Therapeutic Advances in Urology. 2021; 13: 1756287221
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Do Drugs Work for ??? Following Prostate Cancer Surgery
Vasileios Sakalis , Anastasia Gkotsi
Current Drug Targets. 2020; 21(15): 1515
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article
   Patients and Methods
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded255    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal