Ambulatory Urodynamics

  • Paholo G. Barboglio Romo
  • E. Ann GormleyEmail author


While urodynamics remains the gold standard to investigate lower urinary tract symptoms, standard urodynamic (SU) testing may have has significant limitations due to the artificial atmosphere at the time of testing. In these cases ambulatory urodynamic monitoring (AUM) may be used to mitigate many of these issues. Despite the perceived advantages however, ambulatory urodynamics have not proven to impact patient outcomes when compared to standard urodynamics. Despite this there may be a role for AUM in those patients where a complete evaluation with voiding diaries and validated questionnaires and standard urodynamics remain inconclusive. New technologies using catheter free devices are likely to improve the problems encountered with ambulatory urodynamics in the past.


Ambulatory Ambulatory urodynamic monitoring Ambulatory urodynamics Micro-tip transducers Natural filling Physiologic filling Catheter-less 


  1. 1.
    van Waalwijk van Doorn E, Anders K, Khullar V, Kulseng-Hanssen S, Pesce F, Robertson A, Rosario D, Schafer W. Standardization of ambulatory urodynamic monitoring: report of the Standardization Sub-Committee of the International Continence Society for Ambulatory Urodynamic Studies. NeurourolUrodyn. 2000;19(2):113–25.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gammie A, Clarkson B, Constantinou C, Damaser M, Drinnan M, Geleijnse G, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Schafer W, Van Mastrigt R, International Continence Society Urodynamic Equipment Working Group. International Continence Society guidelines on urodynamic equipment performance. NeurourolUrodyn. 2014;33(4):370–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Chapple C, Cottenden A, Davila W, de Ridder D, Dmochowski R, Drake M, Dubeau C, Fry C, Hanno P, Smith JH, Herschorn S, Hosker G, Kelleher C, Koelbl H, Khoury S, Madoff R, Milsom I, Moore K, Newman D, Nitti V, Norton C, Nygaard I, Payne C, Smith A, Staskin D, Tekgul S, Thuroff J, Tubaro A, Vodusek D, Wein A, Wyndaele JJ, Members of Committees & Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence. Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. NeurourolUrodyn. 2010;29(1):213–40.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Waalwijk van Doorn ES, Meier AM, Ambergen AW, Janknegt RA. Ambulatory urodynamics: extramural testing of the lower and upper urinary tract by Holter monitoring of cystometrogram, uroflowmetry, and renal pelvic pressures. Urol Clin North Am. 1996;23(3):345–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL, Andersen JT. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. The International Continence Society Committee on Standardisation of Terminology. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl. 1988;114:5–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thuroff JW, Jonas U, Frohneberg D, Petri E, Hohenfellner R. Telemetric urodynamic investigations in normal males. Urol Int. 1980;35(6):427–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heslington K, Hilton P. Ambulatory monitoring and conventional cystometry in asymptomatic female volunteers. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103(5):434–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James ED. The bladder during physical activity: further views on natural-filling urodynamic investigations. Br J Urol. 1983;55(5):570.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Webb RJ, Ramsden PD, Neal DE. Ambulatory monitoring and electronic measurement of urinary leakage in the diagnosis of detrusor instability and incontinence. Br J Urol. 1991;68(2):148–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vereecken RL, van Nuland T. Detrusor pressure in ambulatory versus standard urodynamics. NeurourolUrodyn. 1998;17(2):129–33.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salvatore S, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Anders K, Zocchi G, Soligo M. Evaluating ambulatory urodynamics: a prospective study in asymptomatic women. BJOG. 2001;108(1):107–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Radley SC, Rosario DJ, Chapple CR, Farkas AG. Conventional and ambulatory urodynamic findings in women with symptoms suggestive of bladder overactivity. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2253–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bo K, Stien R, Kulseng-Hanssen S, Kristofferson M. Clinical and urodynamic assessment of nulliparous young women with and without stress incontinence symptoms: a case-control study. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(6):1028–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dmochowski RR, Blaivas JM, Gormley EA, Juma S, Karram MM, Lightner DJ, Luber KM, Rovner ES, Staskin DR, Winters JC, Appell RA, Whetter LE, Female Stress Urinary Incontinence Update Panel of the American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Update of AUA guideline on the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2010;183(5):1906–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winters JC, Dmochowski RR, Goldman HB, Herndon CD, Kobashi KC, Kraus SR, Lemack GE, Nitti VW, Rovner ES, Wein AJ, American Urological Association & Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine & Urogenital Reconstruction. Urodynamic studies in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2012;188(6 Suppl):2464–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC, Donnell RF, Foster Jr HE, Gonzalez CM, Kaplan SA, Penson DF, Ulchaker JC, Wei JT. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol. 2011;185(5):1793–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robertson AS, Griffiths C, Neal DE. Conventional urodynamics and ambulatory monitoring in the definition and management of bladder outflow obstruction. J Urol. 1996;155(2):506–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martens FM, van Kuppevelt HJ, Beekman JA, Heijnen IC, D’Hauwers KW, Heesakkers JP. No primary role of ambulatory urodynamics for the management of spinal cord injury patients compared to conventional urodynamics. NeurourolUrodyn. 2010;29(8):1380–6.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim KS, Song CG. Availability of a newly devised ambulatory urodynamics monitoring system based on personal device assistance in patients with spinal cord injury. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2012;106(3):260–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Virseda M, Salinas J, Esteban M, Mendez S. Reliability of ambulatory urodynamics in patients with spinal cord injuries. NeurourolUrodyn. 2013;32(4):387–92.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wille S, Tenholte D, Engelmann U. A system for long-term urodynamic studies without catheters. Eur Urol. 2013;63(5):966–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Urology, Department of SurgeryDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical CenterLebanonUSA
  2. 2.Section of Urology, Department of SurgeryDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Mary Hitchcock HospitalLebanonUSA

Personalised recommendations