OBJECTIVE: To determine predictors of physical and emotional discomfort associated with urodynamic testing in men and women both with and without neurologic conditions. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire-based study was completed by patients immediately after undergoing fluoroscopic urodynamic testing. Participants were asked questions pertaining to their perceptions of physical and emotional discomfort related to the study, their urologic and general health history, and demographics. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of physical and emotional discomfort. RESULTS: A total of 314 patients completed the questionnaire representing a response rate of 60%. Half of the respondents (50.7%) felt that the examination was neither physically nor emotionally uncomfortable, whereas 29.0% and 12.4% of respondents felt that the physical and emotional components of the examination were most uncomfortable, respectively. Placement of the urethral catheter was the most commonly reported component of physical discomfort (42.9%), whereas anxiety (27.7%) was the most commonly reported component of emotional discomfort. Presence of a neurologic problem (odds ratio, 0.273; 95% confidence interval, 0.121-0.617) and older age (odds ratio, 0.585; 95% confidence interval, 0.405-0.847) were factors associated with less physical discomfort. There were no significant predictors of emotional discomfort based on our model. CONCLUSION: Urodynamic studies were well tolerated regardless of gender. Presence of a neurologic condition and older age were predictors of less physical discomfort. These findings are useful in counseling patients regarding what to expect when having urodynamic procedures.
OBJECTIVE: To determine predictors of physical and emotional discomfort associated with urodynamic testing in men and women both with and without neurologic conditions. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire-based study was completed by patients immediately after undergoing fluoroscopic urodynamic testing. Participants were asked questions pertaining to their perceptions of physical and emotional discomfort related to the study, their urologic and general health history, and demographics. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of physical and emotional discomfort. RESULTS: A total of 314 patients completed the questionnaire representing a response rate of 60%. Half of the respondents (50.7%) felt that the examination was neither physically nor emotionally uncomfortable, whereas 29.0% and 12.4% of respondents felt that the physical and emotional components of the examination were most uncomfortable, respectively. Placement of the urethral catheter was the most commonly reported component of physical discomfort (42.9%), whereas anxiety (27.7%) was the most commonly reported component of emotional discomfort. Presence of a neurologic problem (odds ratio, 0.273; 95% confidence interval, 0.121-0.617) and older age (odds ratio, 0.585; 95% confidence interval, 0.405-0.847) were factors associated with less physical discomfort. There were no significant predictors of emotional discomfort based on our model. CONCLUSION: Urodynamic studies were well tolerated regardless of gender. Presence of a neurologic condition and older age were predictors of less physical discomfort. These findings are useful in counseling patients regarding what to expect when having urodynamic procedures.
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: 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: Amanda L Lewis; Grace J Young; Lucy E Selman; Caoimhe Rice; Clare Clement; Cynthia A Ochieng; Paul Abrams; Peter S Blair; Christopher Chapple; Cathryn Ma Glazener; Jeremy Horwood; John S McGrath; Sian Noble; Gordon T Taylor; J Athene Lane; Marcus J Drake Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Sarah Milosevic; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Bethan Pell; Elizabeth Cain; Robyn Hackett; Ffion Murdoch; Haroon Ahmed; A Joy Allen; Alison Bray; Samantha Clarke; Marcus J Drake; Michael Drinnan; Kerenza Hood; Tom Schatzberger; Yemisi Takwoingi; Emma Thomas-Jones; Raymond White; Adrian Edwards; Chris Harding Journal: Diagn Progn Res Date: 2021-05-18
Authors: Lucy E Selman; Cynthia A Ochieng; Amanda L Lewis; Marcus J Drake; Jeremy Horwood Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 2.696