Prospective cross-sectional study evaluates LUTD severity in children with CP, indicating significant dysfunction prevalence.
Objectives: The objective of the study is to evaluate the prevalence and severity of lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD) in children with cerebral palsy (CP) through focused non-invasive ultrasound assessments of post-void residual urine (PVR) and average bladder wall thickness (aBWT). Materials and Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from June 2023 to May 2024 at a tertiary care center in Northeast India. Forty-one children with CP and 41 age- and sex-matched controls (age range: 4–12 years) were enrolled. LUTD was assessed using the Dysfunctional Voiding Symptom Score (DVSS) questionnaire, and a blinded radiologist performed ultrasound measurements of PVR and aBWT. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25.0. Tests included the Student’s t -test, Chi-square test, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: The mean age of the CP group was 8 ± 3 years. Median DVSS score in the CP group was 12 (interquartile range [IQR] 9–15), significantly higher than the control group (median 4 [IQR 3–6], P < 0.0001). LUTD was more prevalent in the CP group, with 70.7% showing bladder and bowel dysfunction ( P < 0.0001). Mean aBWT was significantly greater in the CP group (2.22 ± 0.67 mm) compared to controls (1.02 ± 0.60 mm), with a mean difference of 1.20 mm (95% confidence interval: 0.94–1.46 mm; P < 0.0001). Median PVR in the CP group was 10 mL (range: 3–48 mL), compared to 6 mL (range: 2–18 mL) in controls. A moderate positive correlation was found between DVSS scores and aBWT (r = 0.617, P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Children with CP demonstrated significantly higher DVSS scores, aBWT, and PVR compared to controls, consistent with increased prevalence and severity of LUTD. The use of focused non-invasive ultrasound and symptom scoring showed good feasibility and acceptability in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kakoti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: