Bárbara Padilla-Fernández1, Gina M Ramírez-Castillo2, David Hernández-Hernández3, David M Castro-Díaz3. 1. Department of Urology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Canarias, Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. Electronic address: barbara.padilla@sinug.org. 2. Department of Urology, Hospital San José, Bogotá, Colombia. 3. Department of Urology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Canarias, Universidad de La Laguna, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain.
Abstract
There is an ongoing debate in functional urology forums about the role and utility of urodynamics as a diagnostic and prognostic tool for patients with urinary incontinence. Current evidence suggests that in a limited number of patients with pure stress urinary incontinence (those without relevant urogynaecological comorbidities and a low postvoid residual volume of urine), urodynamic studies can be avoided, although this opinion remains controversial. PATIENT SUMMARY: Stress urinary incontinence is highly prevalent and surgical treatment is frequently needed. There is a debate about the need to perform invasive tests to assess the function of the lower urinary tract to predict the outcome of any surgery. We describe the pros and cons for this situation.
There is an ongoing debate in functional urology forums about the role and utility of urodynamics as a diagnostic and prognostic tool for patients with urinary incontinence. Current evidence suggests that in a limited number of patients with pure stress urinary incontinence (those without relevant urogynaecological comorbidities and a low postvoid residual volume of urine), urodynamic studies can be avoided, although this opinion remains controversial. PATIENT SUMMARY:Stress urinary incontinence is highly prevalent and surgical treatment is frequently needed. There is a debate about the need to perform invasive tests to assess the function of the lower urinary tract to predict the outcome of any surgery. We describe the pros and cons for this situation.