OBJECTIVE: To test the usefulness of urodynamic examination in female urinary incontinence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: As part of a population-based, randomized, controlled treatment study in general practice, the control group was offered urodynamic examination before and after delayed treatment starting 6 months after inclusion in the study, i.e. after the first outcome evaluation comparing the initially treated group with the control group. The intervention group was offered urodynamic examination only after the final outcome evaluation at 12 months. Eighty-seven women, aged 50-74, from three Norwegian municipalities participated. RESULTS: There was no difference in treatment outcome whether the patients had urodynamic examination or not. Eleven patients (26% of 42 control patients) had their diagnosis revised after urodynamic examination, ten of them with a subsequent change in treatment. The outcome for this group was no different than for the other patients. As a subgroup, the 11 patients had more severe leakage (p = 0.048) and more previous gynecological operations (p = 0.038) than the other control group patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the idea that in general practice, or in rather unselected patients, women with urinary incontinence may be classified and treated without urodynamic examination. If there is little or no improvement during the first few months referral should be considered, and this should be done sooner for patients with severe incontinence or prior gynecological operations than for other patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test the usefulness of urodynamic examination in female urinary incontinence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: As part of a population-based, randomized, controlled treatment study in general practice, the control group was offered urodynamic examination before and after delayed treatment starting 6 months after inclusion in the study, i.e. after the first outcome evaluation comparing the initially treated group with the control group. The intervention group was offered urodynamic examination only after the final outcome evaluation at 12 months. Eighty-seven women, aged 50-74, from three Norwegian municipalities participated. RESULTS: There was no difference in treatment outcome whether the patients had urodynamic examination or not. Eleven patients (26% of 42 control patients) had their diagnosis revised after urodynamic examination, ten of them with a subsequent change in treatment. The outcome for this group was no different than for the other patients. As a subgroup, the 11 patients had more severe leakage (p = 0.048) and more previous gynecological operations (p = 0.038) than the other control group patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the idea that in general practice, or in rather unselected patients, women with urinary incontinence may be classified and treated without urodynamic examination. If there is little or no improvement during the first few months referral should be considered, and this should be done sooner for patients with severe incontinence or prior gynecological operations than for other patients.
Authors: Larry T Sirls; Holly E Richter; Heather J Litman; Kimberly Kenton; Gary E Lemack; Emily S Lukacz; Stephen R Kraus; Howard B Goldman; Alison Weidner; Leslie Rickey; Peggy Norton; Halina M Zyczynski; John W Kusek Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nicolas S Bodmer; Carla Wirth; Veronika Birkhäuser; Andrea M Sartori; Lorenz Leitner; Marcio A Averbeck; Stefan de Wachter; Enrico Finazzi Agro; Andrew Gammie; Howard B Goldman; Ruth Kirschner-Hermanns; Peter F W M Rosier; Maurizio Serati; Eskinder Solomon; Gommert van Koeveringe; Lucas M Bachmann; Thomas M Kessler Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-09-05
Authors: Tina Sara Verghese; Lee J Middleton; Jane P Daniels; Jonathan J Deeks; Pallavi Manish Latthe Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 2.894