Submucosal administration of onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of neurogenic detrusor overactivity: pilot single-centre experience and comparison with standard injection into the detrusor
Language English Country Switzerland Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
23774308
DOI
10.1159/000350247
PII: 000350247
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Botulinum Toxins, Type A administration & dosage MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Endoscopy MeSH
- Muscle, Smooth drug effects MeSH
- Injections, Intramuscular MeSH
- Urinary Incontinence therapy MeSH
- Quality of Life MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Urinary Bladder drug effects MeSH
- Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic drug therapy MeSH
- Pilot Projects MeSH
- Spinal Cord Injuries prevention & control MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Mucous Membrane drug effects MeSH
- Urodynamics MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Botulinum Toxins, Type A MeSH
INTRODUCTION: Apart from the standard intramural administration of botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT/A) to the detrusor, intense research is taking place into new means of administration in view of the complex mechanism of action of BoNT/A. METHODS: An open, randomised, prospective study was performed on a total of 23 patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity. Following randomisation, patients were treated with 300 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT/A) in either the submucosa or the detrusor. Urodynamic examinations were carried out, and a bladder diary was kept both prior to and 12 weeks after the treatment. All patients stopped taking anticholinergics 1 week prior to the treatment. RESULTS: In both the submucosa and detrusor groups, we recorded a significant improvement in the monitored urodynamic parameters and significant decreases in the frequency of urinary incontinence episodes following the treatment. A comparison of the two groups showed no significant difference between the two forms of application, with the exception of voided volume (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: A comparison of the two administration methods did not show any significant difference between onaBoNT/A administration to the submucosa and to the detrusor. Thus, the submucosal injection of onaBoNT/A represents an equally effective approach for its administration to patients.
References provided by Crossref.org