Cystodistension: Is there evidence to support its use in current practice for patients with overactive bladder?

Abstract

Cystoscopy and cystodistension have been part of common treatment protocols for a variety of bladder conditions for many years. However, the science behind the procedure is not strong and continued use of the operation may not be justified. Much research is old and was not planned or executed with the current rigour demanded by current trial methods. Newer treatments such as intravesical botulinum toxin have been extensively researched and found to be effective. This review article aimed to review the evidence behind the use of cystodistension for overactive bladder (OAB) with the aim of identifying the weaknesses in the current evidence. The article aimed to identify whether a general anaesthetic cystoscopy and distension has sufficient evidence to recommend its continued use in current practice for patients with OAB resistant to conservative and drug therapies.

Impact statement

• Cystodistension is often used in current practice in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) resistant to conservative and drug therapies. Older data suggested that this may be of benefit but there are no randomized controlled trails with appropriate assessment of symptoms and quality of life outcomes.

• This paper reviews the current evidence regarding the use of cystodistension in patients with OAB.

• There is no standardized method of cytodistension making direct comparisons difficult. The data consists of case series from individual units. Some series show benefit but in most cases this is not sustained.

• Initial improvement may fall to around 10–20% after 6 months. Urodynamic parameters may also fail to improve. The procedure is associated with a complication rate of 10–20%.

• A randomised controlled trial of cystodistension is needed to identify if this procedure should be performed for patients with OAB.

Keywords:

• Cystodistension
• cystoscopy
• overactive bladder
• urinary incontinence
• urinary bladder

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.