AIMS: To assess in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) the value of urodynamics prior to treatment. METHODS: We performed a multicenter non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Women with SUI were randomly allocated to management based on a workup with or without urodynamics. The primary outcome was clinical reduction of complaints as measured with the Urogenital Distress Inventory urinary incontinence subscale (UDI-UI) at 12 months after the onset of treatment. A mean difference in improvement of less than 8 was considered non-inferior. The study was analyzed according to intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely because of slow recruitment. We randomly allocated 59 women to a strategy with (N = 31) or without (N = 28) urodynamics. The mean difference in improvement on the UDI-UI was 14 in favor of the group without urodynamics (48 SD ± 22 vs. 34 SD ± 22, 95% CI: -28 to -0.26), confirming non-inferiority. Addition of urodynamics did not result in a lower occurrence of de novo overactive bladder complaints compared to a workup without urodynamics (6/31 vs. 1/28; RR 5.4, 95% CI: 0.70-42). In the group allocated to urodynamics, initial surgical management was more often abandoned compared to the group not allocated to urodynamics (5/31 vs. 1/28; RR 4.5, 95% CI: 0.56-36). CONCLUSIONS: In this relatively small study, the omission of urodynamics was not inferior to the use of urodynamics in the preoperative workup of women with SUI. Women with SUI undergoing urodynamics had the risk of a choice for more prudent treatment, which seemed to result in a delay until effective treatment.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To assess in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) the value of urodynamics prior to treatment. METHODS: We performed a multicenter non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Women with SUI were randomly allocated to management based on a workup with or without urodynamics. The primary outcome was clinical reduction of complaints as measured with the Urogenital Distress Inventory urinary incontinence subscale (UDI-UI) at 12 months after the onset of treatment. A mean difference in improvement of less than 8 was considered non-inferior. The study was analyzed according to intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely because of slow recruitment. We randomly allocated 59 women to a strategy with (N = 31) or without (N = 28) urodynamics. The mean difference in improvement on the UDI-UI was 14 in favor of the group without urodynamics (48 SD ± 22 vs. 34 SD ± 22, 95% CI: -28 to -0.26), confirming non-inferiority. Addition of urodynamics did not result in a lower occurrence of de novo overactive bladder complaints compared to a workup without urodynamics (6/31 vs. 1/28; RR 5.4, 95% CI: 0.70-42). In the group allocated to urodynamics, initial surgical management was more often abandoned compared to the group not allocated to urodynamics (5/31 vs. 1/28; RR 4.5, 95% CI: 0.56-36). CONCLUSIONS: In this relatively small study, the omission of urodynamics was not inferior to the use of urodynamics in the preoperative workup of women with SUI. Women with SUI undergoing urodynamics had the risk of a choice for more prudent treatment, which seemed to result in a delay until effective treatment.
Authors: Anne M Suskind; Lindsey Cox; J Quentin Clemens; Ann Oldendorf; John T Stoffel; Bahaa Malaeb; Yongmei Qin; Anne P Cameron Journal: Urology Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Yan Chen; Jian Guo Wen; Hong Shen; Yu Tao Lv; Yan Wang; Qing Wei Wang; Yrjö T Konttinen Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 2.370