PURPOSE: Due to the paucity of data on urodynamics on the national level, we assessed the use of urodynamics in a large sample of individuals in the United States and identified predictors of increased complexity of urodynamic procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using administrative health care claims for adults enrolled in private insurance plans in the United States from 2002 to 2007, we identified those who underwent cystometrogram and abstracted relevant demographic and clinical data. We used logistic regression to identify predictors of higher urodynamic complexity over basic cystometrogram, specifically cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and videourodynamics. RESULTS: We identified 16,574 urodynamic studies, of which 23% were cystometrograms, 71% were cystometrograms plus pressure flow studies and 6% were videourodynamics. Stress incontinence was the most common clinical condition for all studies (33.7%), cystometrogram (30.8%), cystometrogram plus pressure flow study (35.4%) and videourodynamics (24.4%). Urologists performed 59.8% of all urodynamics and gynecologists performed 35.5%. Providers with 14 or more urodynamic studies during the study period performed 75% of all urodynamics and were more likely to perform cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and videourodynamics. On regression analysis the most consistent predictors of cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and/or videourodynamics over cystometrogram were specialty (urologist) and the number of urodynamic tests performed by the provider. CONCLUSIONS: Most urodynamics in this series consisted of cystometrogram plus pressure flow study with stress incontinence the most common diagnosis. However, regardless of diagnosis, urologists and providers who performed more urodynamics were more likely to perform pressure flow study and/or videourodynamics in addition to cystometrogram. Further research is needed to determine whether these differences reflect gaps in the consistency or appropriateness of using urodynamics.
PURPOSE: Due to the paucity of data on urodynamics on the national level, we assessed the use of urodynamics in a large sample of individuals in the United States and identified predictors of increased complexity of urodynamic procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using administrative health care claims for adults enrolled in private insurance plans in the United States from 2002 to 2007, we identified those who underwent cystometrogram and abstracted relevant demographic and clinical data. We used logistic regression to identify predictors of higher urodynamic complexity over basic cystometrogram, specifically cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and videourodynamics. RESULTS: We identified 16,574 urodynamic studies, of which 23% were cystometrograms, 71% were cystometrograms plus pressure flow studies and 6% were videourodynamics. Stress incontinence was the most common clinical condition for all studies (33.7%), cystometrogram (30.8%), cystometrogram plus pressure flow study (35.4%) and videourodynamics (24.4%). Urologists performed 59.8% of all urodynamics and gynecologists performed 35.5%. Providers with 14 or more urodynamic studies during the study period performed 75% of all urodynamics and were more likely to perform cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and videourodynamics. On regression analysis the most consistent predictors of cystometrogram plus pressure flow study and/or videourodynamics over cystometrogram were specialty (urologist) and the number of urodynamic tests performed by the provider. CONCLUSIONS: Most urodynamics in this series consisted of cystometrogram plus pressure flow study with stress incontinence the most common diagnosis. However, regardless of diagnosis, urologists and providers who performed more urodynamics were more likely to perform pressure flow study and/or videourodynamics in addition to cystometrogram. Further research is needed to determine whether these differences reflect gaps in the consistency or appropriateness of using urodynamics.
Authors: Werner Schäfer; Paul Abrams; Limin Liao; Anders Mattiasson; Francesco Pesce; Anders Spangberg; Arthur M Sterling; Norman R Zinner; Philip van Kerrebroeck Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Paul Abrams; Meena Agarwal; Marcus Drake; Waghi El-Masri; Simon Fulford; Sheilagh Reid; Gurpreet Singh; Paul Tophill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-02-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Gary E Lemack; Stephen Krauss; Heather Litman; Mary Pat FitzGerald; Toby Chai; Charles Nager; Larry Sirls; Halina Zyczynski; Jan Baker; Keith Lloyd; W D Steers Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joachim W Thüroff; Paul Abrams; Karl-Erik Andersson; Walter Artibani; Christopher R Chapple; Marcus J Drake; Christian Hampel; Andreas Neisius; Annette Schröder; Andrea Tubaro Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Sanne A L van Leijsen; Kirsten B Kluivers; Ben Willem J Mol; Suzan R Broekhuis; Fred L Milani; C Huub van der Vaart; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers; Jan den Boon; Wilbert A Spaans; Jan Willem de Leeuw; Viviane Dietz; Jan H Kleinjan; Hans A M Brölmann; Eveline J Roos; Judith Schaafstra; John P F A Heesakkers; Mark E Vierhout Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: G Ghoniem; E Stanford; K Kenton; C Achtari; R Goldberg; T Mascarenhas; M Parekh; K Tamussino; S Tosson; G Lose; E Petri Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2007-11-17
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: Benjamin Abelson; Steve Majerus; Daniel Sun; Bradley C Gill; Eboo Versi; Margot S Damaser Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Peggy A Norton; Charles W Nager; Linda Brubaker; Gary E Lemack; Larry T Sirls; Robert Holley; Toby C Chai; Stephen R Kraus; Halina Zyczynski; Bridget Smith; Anne Stoddard Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Mitchell M Conover; Michele Jonsson Funk; Alan C Kinlaw; Kristy M Borawski; Jennifer M Wu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jong Keun Kim; Changil Choi; Ui Seok Kim; Hyosang Kwon; Seong Ho Lee; Young Goo Lee; Jun Hyun Han Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 2.153