Advertisement

The Clinical Evaluation of the Patient Who Requires Urodynamics

  • Maria Voznesensky
  • R. Clay McDonoughIIIEmail author
Chapter
  • 588 Downloads

Abstract

Although an effective tool for the clinician, urodynamic studies require an appropriate clinical evaluation of the patient prior to initiation. A comprehensive history and physical, basic laboratory studies, and at times other ancillary procedures and radiologic imaging are required to guide the urodynamic procedure. With proper workup, the most appropriate urodynamic studies can be selected and safely utilized to best deliver patient care. This chapter outlines the important portions of the patient workup before proceeding with urodynamics, discusses current recommendations and guidelines, and also describes pertinent patient education and preparation for the studies.

Keywords

Urodynamics History Physical Antibiotic prophylaxis Patient preparation 

References

  1. 1.
    van de Vaart H, Falconer C, Quail D, et al. Patient reported outcomes tools in an observational study of female stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(3):348–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diokno AC, Wells TJ, Brink CA. Comparison of self-reported voided volume with cystometric bladder capacity. J Urol. 1987;137(4):698–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hsieh CH, Chang ST, Hsieh CJ, et al. Treatment of interstitial cystitis with hydrodistention and bladder training. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(10):1379–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdel-fattah M, Barrington JW, Youssef M. The standard 1-hour pad test: does it have any value in clinical practice? Eur Urol. 2004;46(3):377–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Bini V, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of one-hour pad test as a predictive value for female urinary incontinence. Urol Int. 2008;81(2):153–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dylewski DA, Jamison MG, Borawski KM, et al. A statistical comparison of pad numbers versus pad weights in the quantification of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(1):3–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Chaikin DC, et al. Noninvasive outcome measures of urinary incontinence and lower urinary tract symptoms: a multicenter study of micturition diary and pad tests. J Urol. 2000;164(3 Pt 1):698–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, et al. Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):213–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis R, Jones JS, Barocas DA, et al. Diagnosis, evaluation and follow-up of asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH) in adults: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2012;188(6 Suppl):2473–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gormley EA. Evaluation of the patient with incontinence. Can J Urol. 2007;14 Suppl 1:58–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collins CW, Winters JC. AUA/SUFU adult urodynamics guideline: a clinical review. Urol Clin North Am. 2014;41(3):353–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith A, Bevan D, Douglas HR, et al. Management of urinary incontinence in women: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ. 2013;347:f5170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Swain S, Hughes R, Perry M, et al. Management of lower urinary tract dysfunction in neurological disease: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2012;345:e5074. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5074.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gammie A, Clarkson B, Constantinou C, et al. International Continence Society guidelines on urodynamic equipment performance. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(4):370–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winters JC, Dmochowski RR, Goldman HB, et al. Urodynamic studies in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2012;188(6 Suppl):2464–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nager CW, Brubaker L, Litman HJ, et al. A randomized trial of urodynamic testing before stress-incontinence surgery. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1987–97.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Latthe PM, Foon R, Toozs-Hobson P. Prophylactic antibiotics in urodynamics: a systematic review of effectiveness and safety. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27(3):167–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Foon R, Toozs-Hobson P, Latthe P. Prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections after urodynamic studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10, CD008224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Böthig R, Fiebag K, Thietje R, et al. Morbidity of urinary tract infection after urodynamic examination of hospitalized SCI patients: the impact of bladder management. Spinal Cord. 2013;51(1):70–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolf Jr JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, et al. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol. 2008;179(4):1379–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyMaine Medical CenterSouth PortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations