Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pain and embarrassment associated with urodynamic testing in women

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Multichannel urodynamics is a series of interactive tests used to evaluate lower urinary tract dysfunction. We sought to describe symptoms and satisfaction in a cohort of women undergoing these procedures.

Methods

Females undergoing urodynamics completed questionnaires immediately (Q1) and 1 week (Q2) after their testing. Surveys utilized visual analog scales (VAS) from 0 to 10 to assess pain, embarrassment, anxiety, and satisfaction. Q2 also inquired about urinary symptoms in the days following the procedure.

Results

100 women were analyzed. Regarding symptoms on the day of testing, VAS scores indicated low bother; with a median of 1.5/10 for pain, 0.4/10 for embarrassment, and 1.8/10 for anxiety. One week following, recall of pain (p = 0.169), and embarrassment (p = 0.722) were similar. Further analyses suggested that overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) might be associated with greater pain during and after the procedure (p = 0.04, p = 0.038 respectively), while depression was associated with greater embarrassment at those times (p = 0.018, p = 0.027 respectively). Painful bladder syndrome (PBS) was associated with a higher recall of pain (p = 0.018), and anxiety with more embarrassment (p = 0.033) on the second survey. Finally, younger age correlated with higher pain on both questionnaires (Q1: τ = − 0.148, p = 0.029; Q2: τ = − 0.171, p = 0.014). Following urodynamics, urgency was most common (43 %), generally resolving within 1 day. Reassuringly, 86 % would repeat urodynamics if necessary, and overall satisfaction was rated ≥9/10 at both time points.

Conclusion

Urodynamic testing is well-tolerated in women. Nevertheless, younger age, anxiety or depression, and a diagnosis of OAB and PBS may lead to more negative experiences. Such information may be useful in counseling future patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Martin JL, Williams KS, Abrams KR et al (2006) Systematic review and evaluation of methods of assessing urinary incontinence. Health Technol Assess 10(6):1–132, iii–iv

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nager CW, Fitzgerald M, Kraus SR et al (2008) Urodynamic measures do not predict stress continence outcomes after surgery for stress urinary incontinence in selected women. J Urol 179(4):1470–1474

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jarvis GJ (1995) In: Smith ARB (ed) Female urinary incontinence—which patients?—which tests? Urogynaecology. The investigation and management of urinary incontinence in women. RCOG Press, London, pp 32–42

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kringler HC, Madersbacher S, Djavan B (1998) Morbidity of the evaluation of the lower urinary tract with transurethral multichannel pressure-flow studies. J Urol 159:191–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brostom S, Jennum P, Lose G (2002) Morbidity of urodynamic investigation in healthy women. Int Urogynecol J 13:182–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shaw C, Williams K, Assassa PR, Jackson C (2000) Patient satisfaction with urodynamics: a qualitative study. J Adv Nurs 32(6):1356–1363

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gorton E, Stanton S (1999) Women’s attitudes to urodynamics: a questionnaire survey. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106(8):851–856

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ku JH, Kim SW, Kim HH, Paick JS, Son H, Oh SJ (2004) Patient experience with a urodynamic study: a prospective study in 208 patients. J Urol 171:2307–2310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yoyokama T, Nozaki K, Nose H, Inoue M, Nishiyama Y, Kumon H (2005) Tolerability and morbidity of urodynamic testing: a questionnaire-based study. Urology 66(1):74–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gallagher EJ, Bijur PE, Latimer C, Silver W (2002) Reliability and validity of a visual analog scale for acute abdominal pain in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 20(4):287–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kindler CH, Harms C, Amsler F, Ihde-Scholl T, Scheidegger D (2000) The visual analog scale allows effective measurement of preoperative anxiety and detection of patients’ anesthetic concerns. Anesth Analg 90:706–712

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Segev Y, Rosen T, Auslender R, Dain L, Abramov Y (2009) How painful is multichannel urodynamic testing? Int Urogynecol J 20:953–955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ruscheweyh R, Verneuer B, Dany K et al (2012) Validation of the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire in chronic pain patients. Pain 153:1210–1218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Giesecke T, Gracely RH, Grant MA et al (2004) Evidence of augmented central pain processing in idiopathic chronic low back pain. Arthritis Rheum 50:613–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Staud R, Vierck CJ, Cannon RL et al (2001) Abnormal sensitization and temporal summation of second pain in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. Pain 91:165–175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms. Vivian Ghodsi, RN for her assistance with recruitment and data collection.

Funding

Financial support: $1,100 from TriHealth’s Medical Education Research Fund (MERF).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Good Samaritan Hospital, 375 Dixmyth Avenue, Cincinnati, OH, 45222, USA

    Jennifer Y. Yeung

  2. Trihealth Hatton Research Institute, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Michaela A. Eschenbacher

  3. Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Rachel N. Pauls

Authors
  1. Jennifer Y. Yeung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michaela A. Eschenbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel N. Pauls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Y. Yeung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yeung, J.Y., Eschenbacher, M.A. & Pauls, R.N. Pain and embarrassment associated with urodynamic testing in women. Int Urogynecol J 25, 645–650 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2261-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2261-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation