Cargando…

Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether urodynamic investigation (UDI), the gold standard to assess refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), is appropriate to select healthy volunteers with apparent normal lower urinary tract function as control subjects for comparative studies. SUBJECTS AND METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leitner, Lorenz, Walter, Matthias, Sammer, Ulla, Knüpfer, Stephanie C., Mehnert, Ulrich, Kessler, Thomas M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27736908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163847
_version_ 1782459945873047552
author Leitner, Lorenz
Walter, Matthias
Sammer, Ulla
Knüpfer, Stephanie C.
Mehnert, Ulrich
Kessler, Thomas M.
author_facet Leitner, Lorenz
Walter, Matthias
Sammer, Ulla
Knüpfer, Stephanie C.
Mehnert, Ulrich
Kessler, Thomas M.
author_sort Leitner, Lorenz
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether urodynamic investigation (UDI), the gold standard to assess refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), is appropriate to select healthy volunteers with apparent normal lower urinary tract function as control subjects for comparative studies. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 42 healthy subjects (22 women, mean age 32±10 years; 20 men, mean age 37±12 years) without LUTS were included into this prospective single-centre cohort study. All subjects recorded a 3-day bladder diary, completed validated questionnaires regarding LUTS, and underwent neuro-urological assessment as well as free uroflowmetry. Same session repeat UDI was performed according to “Good Urodynamic Practice” recommended by the International Continence Society, but using an air-charged instead of a water-filled catheter, and evaluated by a blinded investigator. RESULTS: All 3-day bladder diaries, LUTS questionnaires, neuro-urological assessments and free uroflowmetries were within normal limits. Overall (either during the first or second UDI), same session repeat UDI revealed pathological findings in 71% (30/42): Detrusor overactivity was detected in 14% (3/22) and 30% (6/20), post void residual >100mL in 14% (3/22) and 25% (5/20), bladder outlet obstruction in 9% (2/22) and 20% (4/20) and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia in 77% (17/22) and 65% (13/20) of our women and men, respectively. Repeatability of detrusor overactivity (κ = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.54–1.02) and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia (κ = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55–0.98) showed substantial agreement between both UDIs. All other assessed urodynamic parameters had wide 95% limits of agreement for differences in the parameters indicating poor repeatability. CONCLUSIONS: More than 70% of our healthy subjects showed pathological urodynamic findings. Although UDI is the gold standard to assess refractory LUTS, it seems not to be applicable in healthy subjects to define normal lower urinary tract function. Therefore, we do not recommend using UDI to select healthy control subjects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5063299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50632992016-11-04 Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function? Leitner, Lorenz Walter, Matthias Sammer, Ulla Knüpfer, Stephanie C. Mehnert, Ulrich Kessler, Thomas M. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether urodynamic investigation (UDI), the gold standard to assess refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), is appropriate to select healthy volunteers with apparent normal lower urinary tract function as control subjects for comparative studies. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 42 healthy subjects (22 women, mean age 32±10 years; 20 men, mean age 37±12 years) without LUTS were included into this prospective single-centre cohort study. All subjects recorded a 3-day bladder diary, completed validated questionnaires regarding LUTS, and underwent neuro-urological assessment as well as free uroflowmetry. Same session repeat UDI was performed according to “Good Urodynamic Practice” recommended by the International Continence Society, but using an air-charged instead of a water-filled catheter, and evaluated by a blinded investigator. RESULTS: All 3-day bladder diaries, LUTS questionnaires, neuro-urological assessments and free uroflowmetries were within normal limits. Overall (either during the first or second UDI), same session repeat UDI revealed pathological findings in 71% (30/42): Detrusor overactivity was detected in 14% (3/22) and 30% (6/20), post void residual >100mL in 14% (3/22) and 25% (5/20), bladder outlet obstruction in 9% (2/22) and 20% (4/20) and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia in 77% (17/22) and 65% (13/20) of our women and men, respectively. Repeatability of detrusor overactivity (κ = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.54–1.02) and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia (κ = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.55–0.98) showed substantial agreement between both UDIs. All other assessed urodynamic parameters had wide 95% limits of agreement for differences in the parameters indicating poor repeatability. CONCLUSIONS: More than 70% of our healthy subjects showed pathological urodynamic findings. Although UDI is the gold standard to assess refractory LUTS, it seems not to be applicable in healthy subjects to define normal lower urinary tract function. Therefore, we do not recommend using UDI to select healthy control subjects. Public Library of Science 2016-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5063299/ /pubmed/27736908 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163847 Text en © 2016 Leitner et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Leitner, Lorenz
Walter, Matthias
Sammer, Ulla
Knüpfer, Stephanie C.
Mehnert, Ulrich
Kessler, Thomas M.
Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function?
title Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function?
title_full Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function?
title_fullStr Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function?
title_full_unstemmed Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function?
title_short Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function?
title_sort urodynamic investigation: a valid tool to define normal lower urinary tract function?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27736908
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163847
work_keys_str_mv AT leitnerlorenz urodynamicinvestigationavalidtooltodefinenormallowerurinarytractfunction
AT waltermatthias urodynamicinvestigationavalidtooltodefinenormallowerurinarytractfunction
AT sammerulla urodynamicinvestigationavalidtooltodefinenormallowerurinarytractfunction
AT knupferstephaniec urodynamicinvestigationavalidtooltodefinenormallowerurinarytractfunction
AT mehnertulrich urodynamicinvestigationavalidtooltodefinenormallowerurinarytractfunction
AT kesslerthomasm urodynamicinvestigationavalidtooltodefinenormallowerurinarytractfunction