. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Sep 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Urol. 2010 Jul 21;184(3):1204–1210. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.04.066

Table 1.

Comparisons between sham, HSV-LacZ, and HSV-GAD groups in urodynamic parameters

	Bladder contraction			Urethral contraction
	Interval (min)	Amplitude (cm H₂O)	Baseline pressure (cm H₂O)	Urethral pressure change (cm H₂O)	Baseline pressure (cm H₂O)
Sham (n = 10)	0.47 ± 0.07	26.0 ± 2.8	17.0 ± 1.3	17.2 ± 2.5	21.4 ± 3.1
HSV-LacZ (n = 8)	0.34 ± 0.04	28.0± 3.9	14.7 ± 0.9	18.7± 1.9	13.2± 2.3
HSV-GAD (n =10)	0.37 ± 0.03	21.6 ± 3.4	18.0 ± 1.4	4.0 ± 1.1^**^††	16.9 ± 4.1

Values are the mean ± SE. Significant differences when compared with sham are indicated by:

^**

p < 0.01.

Significant differences when compared with HSV-LacZ are indicated by:

^††

p < 0.01.

HSV, herpes simplex virus; GAD, glutamic acid decarboxylase