Literature DB >> 19021606

Could the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines on urodynamics in urinary incontinence put some women at risk of a bad outcome from stress incontinence surgery?

Wael Agur1, Fadi Housami, Marcus Drake, Paul Abrams.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential impact of the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommendation that preoperative urodynamics are not necessary for women with 'pure symptoms of stress urinary incontinence' (SUI), by using data from a population of women referred with lower urinary tract symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study of 6276 women with UI, from an electronic database at a tertiary referral centre, information was collected and entered into a urodynamics computer database at the time of history taking and before conducting the tests. The database was used to identify women aged 18-80 years who had multichannel cystometry for UI over a 17-year period (1 January 1990 to 31 December 2006). To apply the NICE criterion of a 'clearly defined clinical diagnosis of pure SUI', strict selection criteria were used to identify patients with pure SUI. The reliability of the patients' history in predicting 'pure' urodynamic SUI in patients with 'pure' SUI was investigated. The correspondence of the symptomatic diagnosis of pure SUI with the urodynamic findings was assessed, and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated using contingency tables.
RESULTS: Only 324 (5.2%) women had pure SUI; moreover, a quarter of those with pure SUI symptoms ultimately had urodynamic diagnoses other than urodynamic SUI, that could affect the outcome of continence surgery.
CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that only a small group of women fulfil the NICE criteria of pure SUI. These strict criteria do not ensure that all women with potentially important urodynamic findings are evaluated accordingly. Therefore, we suggest that this NICE recommendation was unwise and, furthermore, was not based on properly acquired expert opinion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19021606     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08121.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  12 in total

1.  Post-void residual urine under 150 ml does not exclude voiding dysfunction in women.

Authors:  Yasmine Khayyami; Niels Klarskov; Gunnar Lose
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  A randomized trial of urodynamic testing before stress-incontinence surgery.

Authors:  Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Heather J Litman; Halina M Zyczynski; R Edward Varner; Cindy Amundsen; Larry T Sirls; Peggy A Norton; Amy M Arisco; Toby C Chai; Philippe Zimmern; Matthew D Barber; Kimberly J Dandreo; Shawn A Menefee; Kimberly Kenton; Jerry Lowder; Holly E Richter; Salil Khandwala; Ingrid Nygaard; Stephen R Kraus; Harry W Johnson; Gary E Lemack; Marina Mihova; Michael E Albo; Elizabeth Mueller; Gary Sutkin; Tracey S Wilson; Yvonne Hsu; Thomas A Rozanski; Leslie M Rickey; David Rahn; Sharon Tennstedt; John W Kusek; E Ann Gormley
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Patterns and predictors of urodynamics use in the United States.

Authors:  W Stuart Reynolds; Roger R Dmochowski; Julie Lai; Chris Saigal; David F Penson
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Design of the Value of Urodynamic Evaluation (ValUE) trial: A non-inferiority randomized trial of preoperative urodynamic investigations.

Authors:  Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Firouz Daneshgari; Heather J Litman; Kimberly J Dandreo; Larry Sirls; Gary E Lemack; Holly E Richter; Wendy Leng; Peggy Norton; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Debuene Chang; Cindy L Amundsen; Anne M Stoddard; Sharon L Tennstedt
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2009-07-25       Impact factor: 2.226

5.  The effect of urodynamic testing on clinical diagnosis, treatment plan and outcomes in women undergoing stress urinary incontinence surgery.

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

Review 6.  Clinical risk factors and urodynamic predictors prior to surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence: a narrative review.

Authors:  Mette Hornum Bing; Helga Gimbel; Susanne Greisen; Lene Birgitte Paulsen; Helle Christina Soerensen; Gunnar Lose
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  The surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Christopher K Harding; A C Thorpe
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010-04

8.  Low-frequency electrotherapy for female patients with detrusor underactivity due to neuromuscular deficiency.

Authors:  Dan-Feng Xu; Shen Zhang; Cun-Zhou Wang; Jun Li; Chuang-Yu Qu; Xin-Gang Cui; Sheng-Jia Zhao
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-03-23       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  A mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of invasive urodynamic testing versus clinical assessment and non-invasive tests prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: the INVESTIGATE-I study.

Authors:  Paul Hilton; Natalie Armstrong; Catherine Brennand; Denise Howel; Jing Shen; Andrew Bryant; Douglas G Tincello; Malcolm G Lucas; Brian S Buckley; Christopher R Chapple; Tara Homer; Luke Vale; Elaine McColl
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  The evidence for urodynamic investigation of patients with symptoms of urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Peter F Rosier
Journal:  F1000Prime Rep       Date:  2013-03-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.