A morphological evaluation of botulinum neurotoxin A injections into the detrusor muscle using magnetic resonance imaging

Ulrich Mehnert, Sönke Boy, Marius Schmid, André Reitz, Alexander von Hessling, Juerg Hodler, Brigitte Schurch, Ulrich Mehnert, Sönke Boy, Marius Schmid, André Reitz, Alexander von Hessling, Juerg Hodler, Brigitte Schurch

Abstract

Objectives: Although botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT/A) intradetrusor injections are a recommended therapy for neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO), refractory to antimuscarinic drugs, a standardisation of injection technique is missing. Furthermore, some basic questions are still unanswered, as where the toxin solution exactly spreads after injection. Therefore, we investigated the distribution of the toxin solution after injection into the bladder wall, using magnet resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods: Six patients with NDO were recruited. Three of six patients received 300 U of BoNT/A + contrast agent distributed over 30 injection sites (group 1). The other three patients received 300 U of BoNT/A + contrast agent distributed over 10 injection sites (group 2). Immediately after injection, MRI of the pelvis was performed. The volume of the detrusor and the total volume of contrast medium inside and outside the bladder wall were calculated.

Results: In all patients, a small volume (mean 17.6%) was found at the lateral aspects of the bladder dome in the extraperitoneal fat tissue, whereas 82.4% of the injected volume reached the target area (detrusor). In both groups there was a similar distribution of the contrast medium in the target area. A mean of 33.3 and 25.3% of the total detrusor volume was covered in group 1 and 2, respectively. Six weeks after injection, five of six patients were continent and showed no detrusor overactivity in the urodynamic follow-up. No systemic side effects were observed.

Conclusions: Our results provide morphological arguments that the currently used injection techniques are appropriate and safe.

References

    1. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2003 Nov;11(4):431-8
    1. Neurochem Int. 2008 May;52(6):1068-75
    1. BJU Int. 2005 Feb;95(3):454
    1. J Urol. 2000 Sep;164(3 Pt 1):692-7
    1. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2006 Dec;(151):27-32
    1. J Urol. 2005 Jul;174(1):196-200
    1. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008 Jun;5(6):319-28
    1. J Ultrasound Med. 2003 Aug;22(8):777-82
    1. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2007 Oct;293(4):F1018-25
    1. Urology. 2004 May;63(5):868-72
    1. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2007 Mar;292(3):F1065-72
    1. BJU Int. 2006 Apr;97(4):675-8
    1. Neurochem Int. 2004 Dec;45(7):987-93
    1. Eur Urol. 2006 Nov;50(5):1058-64
    1. Neurourol Urodyn. 2006;25(4):308-17; discussion 318
    1. BJU Int. 2006 Jul;98(1):77-82
    1. Urology. 2008 Mar;71(3):455-9
    1. Urologe A. 2007 Sep;46(9):1211-8
    1. J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):977-82; discussion 982-3
    1. Eur Urol. 2004 Apr;45(4):510-5
    1. BJU Int. 2007 Feb;99(2):247-62
    1. Eur Urol. 2008 Feb;53(2):275-87
    1. Rev Urol. 2006 Fall;8(4):198-208
    1. Urology. 2006 Feb;67(2):232-6
    1. BJU Int. 2006 Jul;98(1):28-32
    1. Pediatr Nephrol. 2001 Dec;16(12):1122-5
    1. Spinal Cord. 2004 Jun;42(6):338-41
    1. JAMA. 2008 May 21;299(19):2261-3
    1. Int Braz J Urol. 2007 Mar-Apr;33(2):132-41

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera