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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Yarnell JW, Voyle GJ, Sweetnam PM, Milbank J, Richard CJ, Stephensen TP. Factors with urinary incontinence in women.J Epidemiol Commun Health 1982;36:58–63
Warrell D. Anterior repair. In: Stanton SL, Tanago EA, eds. Surgery of female incontinence, 2nd edn. London: Springer-Verlag, 1986;77–85
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;167:392–399
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;7:147–53
Dwyer PL, Lee ETC, Hay DM. Obesity and urinary incontinence in women.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:91–96
Kolbl H, Riss P. Obesity and stress urinary incontinence: significance of indicies of relative weight.Urol Int 1988;43:7–10
Burgio KL, Matthews KA, Engel BT. Prevalence, incidence and correlates of urinary incontinence in healthy middle-aged women.J Urol 1991;146:1255–1259
Vellas B, Seduilh M, Alberede JL. Urinary incontinence, epidemiological considerations.Dan Med Bull 1989;36(Suppl 8):5–9
Mommsen S, Foldspang A. Body mass index and adult female urinary incontinence.World J Urol 1994;12:19–22
Nygaard IE, Thompson FL, Svengalis SL. Albright JP. Urinary incontinence in elite nulliparous atheletes.Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:183–187
Richard PA. Use of vaginal pressure measurements in urodynamic testing.Obstet Gynecol 1995;66:581–584
Bhatia NN, Bergman A. urodynamic appraisal of vaginal versus rectal pressure recording as indications of intra abdominal pressure.Urology 1986;27:482–485
Vereecken RC. Intravaginal pressure recording as an alternative to intrarectal pressure monitoring.Urology 1987;19:225–226
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;60:212–216
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;59:529–532
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;85:488–493
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
EDITORIAL COMMENT: This is a very nice, simple study that addresses the question of increased body mass index being associated with increased intra-abdominal pressure. The authors demonstrate a strong correlation between body mass index and intra-abdominal pressures with the data in their patient population which remains even after potential confounding differences between intra-abdominal pressures measured transcrectally or transabdominally have been eliminated. The authors do an excellent job of reviewing the literature to support their premise that increased body mass index leading to increased intra-abdominal pressure may contribute to the incidence and recurrence of genuine stress incontinence in the obese patient.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Noblett, K.L., Jensen, J.K. & Ostergard, D.R. The relationship of body mass index to intra-abdominal pressure as measured by multichannel cystometry. Int Urogynecol J 8, 323–326 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765589
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765589