Résumé
Les données actuelles de la littérature ne permettent pas d’identifier les signes et symptômes cliniques les plus évocateurs de périnée neurologique, et il n’existe pas de données d’évidence sur la valeur de l’examen clinique en neuropérinéologie. Aucun signe ou symptôme, pris isolément, ne permet d’affirmer l’origine neurologique d’un trouble mictionnel. L’association de signes ou symptômes subjectifs et objectifs concordant avec un contexte évocateur peut orienter vers une origine neurogène et inciter à son dépistage.
Abstract
The current published data does not help in identifying the clinical symptoms and signs, which are most suggestive of perineal neurological abnormalities, and there is no evidence based on the value of the clinical examination in this area. No symptom or sign taken on its own can be adduced in favour of a neurological cause of a problem in micturition. The combination of subjective and objective symptoms and signs in a context compatible with such pathology may suggest a neurogenic cause, and encourage a search for it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Références
Anaes (2000) Guide d’analyse de la littérature et gradation des recommandations. Janvier 2000. http//www.anaes.fr
Abrams P, Feneley R, Torrens M (1983) Patient assessment. In: Urodynamics. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 6–27
Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178
Webster GD, Guralnick (2002) The Neurourologic Evaluation. In: Walsh PC (ed) Campbell’s Urology. Saunders, Philadelphia
Ahlberg J, Edlund C, Wikkelsö C, et al (2002) Neurological signs are common in patients with urodynamically verified “idiopathic” bladder overactivity. Neurourol Urodyn 21:65–70
Amarenco G, Kerdraon J (2006) Vessies neurologiques. EMC Neurologie 17-012-L-10
Blaivas JG, Appel RA, Fantl JA, et al (1997) Standards of efficacy for evaluation and treatment outcomes in urinary incontinence: recommendations of the Urodynamic Society. Neurourol Urodyn 16:145–147
Bourcier A, Juras JC, Villet R, Labat JJ (2005) Place et intérêt de l’interrogatoire et de l’examen clinique. In: Dysfonctionnement du plancher pelvien. Elsevier Ed, pp 175–197
Diokno A (1988) Neurologic examination. In: Yalla S, McGuire E, Elbadawi A, Blaivas E (eds) Neurourology and urodynamics. Mac Milan, New York, pp 150–154
Fowler CJ, O’Malley KJ (2003) Investigation and management of neurogenic bladder dysfunction. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 74(Suppl 4):iv27–iv31
Hald T, Bradley W (1982) Neurological history and examination. In: The urinary bladder. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 104–109
McGuire E (1984) An approach to diagnosis. In: Clinical evaluation and treatment of neurogenic vesical dysfunction. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 17–29
Norris JP, Staskin DR (1996) History, physical examination and classification of neurogenic voiding dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am 23:337–343
Panicker J, Kalsi V, de Sèze M (2010) Approach and evaluation of neurogenic bladder dysfunction. In: Fowler JF (ed) Pelvic organ dysfunction. University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–78
Stöhrer M, Castro-Diaz D, Chartier-Kastler E, et al (2007) Guidelines on neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. Prog Urol 17:687–699
Podnar S, Trsinar B, Vodusek DB (2006) Bladder dysfunction in patients with cauda equina lesions. Neurourol Urodyn 25:23–31
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Public/Intérêt: Chercheurs/Majeur. Cliniciens/Majeur. Enseignants/Majeur. Étudiants/Majeur. Autres professions de santé/Élevé. Cadres santé publique/Faible.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Sèze, M. Données d’évidence en examen clinique en neuro-urologie. Pelv Perineol 6, 123–126 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11608-011-0366-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11608-011-0366-x