Objectives: To determine whether it is possible to predict urodynamic stress urinary incontinence (uSUI) in women with minimal diagnostic evaluation. Materials and Methods: Medical records of 2,643 female incontinent patients were reviewed and 301 women were eligible for this study. The positive predictive values (PPV), sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive values (NPV) for uSUI and uSUI with or without detrusor overactivity (DO), and DO patients of pure SUI symptom (group 1), combination of pure SUI symptom and positive provocative stress test (+PST; group 2) and combination of pure SUI symptom, +PST and absence of overactive bladder symptoms (group 3) were calculated for each group. Results: Mean age was 51.03 years (22-88). PPV, sensitivity and specificity values for uSUI with or without DO of group 3 were 100, 7.4, and 100%, while these values for pure uSUI were 93.3, 9.3, and 99.3%, respectively. Interestingly, none of the patients in groups 2 and 3 had DO. Conclusions: Our results show that it was possible to predict uSUI with high accuracy using minimal diagnostic evaluation in a group of female patients with pure stress incontinence symptoms +PST while it was also possible to eliminate DO accurately in this group of patients.

Keywords:
Positive predictive value, Stress urinary incontinence, Urodynamic study
1.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The Management of Urinary Incontinence in Women. London, RCOG, 2006, http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG40/guidance/pdf/English/download.dspx (accessed Apr 9, 2009).
2.
Ghoniem G, Stanford E, Kenton K, et al: Evaluation and outcome measures in the treatment of female urinary stress incontinence: International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) guidelines for research and clinical practice. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008;19:5-33.
3.
Dmochowski RR, Blaivas JM, Gormley EA, et al: Update of AUA guideline on the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 2010;183:1906-1914.
4.
Agur W, Housami F, Drake M, et al: 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? BJUI 2008;103:635-639.
5.
Digesu GA, Hendricken C, Fernando R, et al: Do women with pure stress urinary incontinence need urodynamics? Urology 2009;74:278-281.
6.
Jeong SJ, Kim HJ, Lee BL, et al: Women with pure stress urinary incontinence symptoms assessed by the initial standard evaluation including measurement of post-void residual volume and a stress test: are urodynamic studies still needed? Neurourol Urodyn 2012;31:508-512.
7.
Nager CW, Brubaker L, Litman HJ, et al: A randomized trial of urodynamic testing before stress-incontinence surgery. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1987-1997.
8.
Cetinel B, Ozkan B, Can G: The validation study of ICIQ-SF Turkish version. Turk J Urol 2004;30:332.
9.
Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al: Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:261-274.
10.
Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, van Kerrebroeck P, Victor A, Wein A: The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:116-126.
11.
Renganathan A, Duckett J, Nayak K: Female urinary incontinence - urodynamics: yes or no? J Obstet Gynaecol 2009;29:473-479.
12.
Dursun P, Dogan NU, Kolusari A, et al: Differences in geographical distribution and risk factors for urinary incontinence in Turkey: analysis of 6,473 women. Urol Int 2014;92:209-214.
13.
Mohsin Rizvi R, Chughtai NG: Reliability of urodynamic interpretation in women presenting with urinary incontinence at a tertiary hospital. Urol Int 2012;88:410-414
14.
Weidner AC, Myers ER, Visco AG, et al: Which women with stress incontinence require urodynamic evaluation? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:20-27.
15.
Patel AK, Chapple CR: Urodynamics in the management of female stress incontinence - which test and when? Curr Opin Urol 2008;18:359-364.
16.
Fletcher SG, Lemack GE: Clarifying the role of urodynamics in the preoperative evaluation of stress urinary incontinence. ScientificWorldJournal 2008;8:1259-1268.
17.
Chou EC, Flisser AJ, Panagopoulos G, et al: Effective treatment for mixed urinary incontinence with a pubovaginal sling. J Urol 2003;170:494-497.
18.
Duckett JR, Tamilselvi A: Effect of tension-free vaginal tape in women with a urodynamic diagnosis of idiopathic detrusor overactivity and stress incontinence. BJOG 2006;113:30-33.
19.
Rezapour M, Ulmsten U: Tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) in women with mixed urinary incontinence - a long-term follow-up. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2001;12(suppl 2):15-18.
20.
Videla FL, Wall LL: Stress incontinence diagnosed without multichannel urodynamic studies. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:965-968.
21.
Lemack GE, Zimmern PE: Predictability of urodynamic findings based on the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire. Urology 1999;54:461-466.
22.
Matharu G, Donaldson MMK, McGrother CW, et al: Relationship between urinary symptoms reported in a postal questionnaire and urodynamic diagnosis. Neurourol Urodyn 2005;24:100-105.
23.
Hajebrahimi S, Nourizadeh D, Hamedani R, et al: Validity and reliability of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form and its correlation with urodynamic findings. Urol J 2012;9:685-690.
24.
FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L: Urinary incontinence symptom scores and urodynamic diagnoses. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:30-35.
25.
Khan MS, Chaliha C, Leskova L, et al: The relationship between urinary symptoms questionnaires and urinary diagnoses: an analysis of two methods of questionnaire administration. BJOG 2004;111:468.
26.
Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, et al: ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23:322-330.
27.
Lucas MG, Bosch JLHR, Cruz FR, et al: Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence. European Association of Urology, 2012, http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/18_Urinary_Incontinence_LR_1%20October%202012.pdf.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.