Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Multichannel urodynamic testing is considered to be the gold standard for evaluation of lower urinary tracts symptoms in women. The objective of this study was to assess the level of pain associated with this test.
Methods
We reviewed charts of women who underwent multichannel urodynamic testing for lower urinary tract symptoms and recorded pain levels using a validated visual analog pain scale of 0–10 before, during, and 1.5 h after the test.
Results
We identified 50 patients who underwent the test. Pain level increased mildly but significantly during the urodynamic test (1.24 ± 0.9 vs 0.02 ± 0.14 p < 0.001) and decreased thereafter (0.1 ± 0.35, p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Multichannel urodynamic testing is associated with a low but significant level of pain, which generally abates shortly after the procedure. No correlation seems to exist between the degree of pain and various clinical and pelvic floor parameters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- MUT:
-
Multichannel urodynamic testing
References
Martin JL, Williams KS, Abrams KR, Turner DA, Sutton AJ, Chapple C, Assassa RP, Shaw C, Cheater F (2006) Systematic review and evaluation of methods of assessing urinary incontinence. Health Technol Assess 10(6):1–132 iii-iv
Yalcin I, Versi E, Benson JT, Schäfer W, Bump RC (2004) Validation of a clinical algorithm to diagnose stress urinary incontinence for large studies. J Urol 171:2321–5
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
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):287–90
Wall LL, Norton PA, DeLancey JOL (1993) Practical urodynamics. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD
Geiss IM, Riss PA, Hanzal E, Dungl A (2007) A simple teaching tool for training the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(9):1003–5
Oh SJ, Son H, Jeong JY, Ku JH (2006) Patients' experience with ambulatory urodynamics A prospective study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 40(5):391–6
Greenstein A, Bar-Yosef Y, Chen J, Matzkin H (2006) Does information provided to men before a urodynamic study affect their expectation of pain? BJU Int 96(9):1307–9
Yokoyama 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):74–6
Shaw C, Williams K, Assassa PR, Jackson C (2000) Patient satisfaction with urodynamics: a qualitativestudy. J Adv Nursing 32:1356
Benness C, Manning J (1997) Patient evaluation of urodynamic investigations. Neurourol Urodyn 16:509
Kortmann BB, Sonke GS, D'ancona FC, Floratos DL, Debruyne FM, De La Rosette JJ (1999) The tolerability of urodynamic studies and flexible cysto-urethroscopy used in the assessment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms. BJU Int 84:449
Conflicts of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Segev, Y., Rosen, T., Auslender, R. et al. How painful is multichannel urodynamic testing?. Int Urogynecol J 20, 953–955 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0889-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0889-7