Identifying patients who require urodynamic testing before surgery for stress incontinence based on questionnaire information and surgical history

Citation
Ge. Lemack et Pe. Zimmern, Identifying patients who require urodynamic testing before surgery for stress incontinence based on questionnaire information and surgical history, UROLOGY, 55(4), 2000, pp. 506-511
Citations number
11
Categorie Soggetti
Urology & Nephrology
Journal title
UROLOGY
ISSN journal
00904295 → ACNP
Volume
55
Issue
4
Year of publication
2000
Pages
506 - 511
Database
ISI
SICI code
0090-4295(200004)55:4<506:IPWRUT>2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
Objectives. To determine whether knowledge about previous surgical history for incontinence and responses to a validated lower urinary tract symptom q uestionnaire for women could identify those who should undergo urodynamic t esting before surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods. A retrospective analysis of all women who completed the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire (UDI-6) and then underwent complete uro dynamic studies was conducted. The critical urodynamic diagnoses to determi ne before anti-incontinence surgery were defined as coexisting SUI and detr usor instability (DI), Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O, an d DI alone in women suspected clinically of having SUI. Models were establi shed for deciding who should undergo urodynamic studies on the basis of que stionnaire responses and information about previous surgical history. Cost savings and the ability of the various models to identify patients with cri tical urodynamic diagnoses were calculated. Results. A total of 174 women completed the UDI-6 and underwent urodynamics studies. Sixty-two had SUI (36%), 54 had DI (31%), 18 had both SUI and DI (10%), and 19 women suspected of having SUI were found instead to have DI ( 11%). Among women with SUI, 39 had a Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O (63%). No group of question responses or combination of question responses and presence of previous incontinence surgery was able to identi fy all three critical urodynamic diagnoses with statistical significance. S till, the combination of a response of "2" or "3" to question 3 on the UDI- 6 and a positive history of previous surgery would have identified 91% of t he critical diagnoses, and a substantial cost savings would have been reali zed. Conclusions. Using the UDI-6 and information obtained from the patient's hi story to determine who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for SUI can result in substantial cost savings without sacrificing patient car e. UROLOGY 55: 506-511, 2000. (C) 2000, Elsevier Science Inc.