Use of Urodynamics by Gynecologists and Urologists in Brazil

Abstract

Objective Urodynamic studies (UDSs) are a set of tests that assess the storage and emptying of urine, and they are widely used by gynecologists and urologists in the management of urinary incontinence (UI), despite the discussion about its indications. The objectives of the present study were to verify whether UDSs are routinely used in the conservative and surgical approaches to female UI, their other clinical indications, and to compare the responses of Brazilian gynecologists and urologists.

Methods The present is an opinion survey applied from August 2020 to January 2021 through a semistructured questionnaire about the clinical practice sent by e-mail to all participants. The responses were compared through statistical analyses.

Results Of the 329 participants, 238 were gynecologists (72.3%) and 91, urologists (27.7%). Most gynecologists (73.5%) and urologists (86.6%) do not request UDSs before the conservative treatment of UI; but UDSs are indicated in the preoperative period of anti-incontinence surgeries. Most participants request UDSs in the initial approach to overactive bladder (gynecologists: 88.2%; urologists: 96.7%), and the urologist has greater chance to request this study (odds ratio [OR] = 3.9). For most participants, it is necessary to request uroculture before the UDSs.

Conclusion Most Brazilian gynecologists and urologists who participated in the present study do not request UDSs before the conservative treatment of UI, according to national and internacional guidelines, and often request it before the surgical treatment for female UI. The indication of this exam in the initial approach of idiopathic overactive bladder should be reviewed by the participants.

Resumo

Objetivo O estudo urodinâmico (EU) é um conjunto de exames que avalia o armazenamento e esvaziamento da urina, e é amplamente utilizado por ginecologistas e urologistas no manejo da incontinência urinária (IU), apesar das discussões sobre suas indicações. O objetivo deste estudo foi verificar se a urodinâmica é rotineiramente utilizada nas abordagens conservadora e cirúrgica da IU feminina, além de outras de suas indicações clínicas, e comparar as respostas de ginecologistas e urologistas brasileiros.

Métodos Trata-se de uma pesquisa de opinião, realizada entre agosto de 2020 e janeiro de 2021, por meio de questionário semiestruturado composto por perguntas sobre a prática clínica enviado por e-mail a todos os participantes. As respostas foram comparadas mediante análises estatísticas.

Resultados Dos 329 participantes, 238 eram ginecologistas (72,3%) e 91, urologistas (27,7%). A maioria dos ginecologistas (73,5%) e urologistas (86,6%) não solicita EU antes do tratamento conservador da IU; mas o EU é indicado no pré-operatório de cirurgias para IU. A maioria dos participantes solicita EU na abordagem inicial da bexiga hiperativa (ginecologistas: 88,2%; urologistas: 96,7%), e os urologistas têm maior chance de solicitar esse exame (razão de chances [RC] = 3,9). Para a maioria dos entrevistados, é necessário solicitar urocultura junto com o EU.

Conclusão A maioria dos ginecologistas e urologistas brasileiros que participaram deste estudo não solicita EU antes do tratamento conservador da IU, de acordo com as principais diretrizes nacionais e internacionais, e muitas vezes o solicita antes do tratamento cirúrgico da IU feminina. A indicação desse exame na abordagem inicial da bexiga hiperativa idiopática deve ser revista pelos participantes.

Keywords

urodynamics - female urinary incontinence - overactive bladder

Palavras-chave

urodinâmica - incontinência urinária feminina - bexiga hiperativa

Contributors

All authors were involved in the design and interpretation of the analyses, contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Publication History

Received: 07 September 2021

Accepted: 08 February 2022

Article published online:
08 August 2022

• References

• 1 Hosker G. Special investigations for female incontinence. Womens Health Med. 2005; 2 (06) 15-19 DOI: 10.1383/wohm.2005.2.6.15.
• 2 Baines G, Da Silva AS, Araklitis G, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Recent advances in urodynamics in women. F1000Res. 2020 9. F1000 Faculty Rev-606. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.24640.1
• 3 Rosier PFWM, Schaefer W, Lose G. et al. International Continence Society Good Urodynamic Practices and Terms 2016: urodynamics, uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure-flow study. Neurourol Urodyn 2017; 36 (05) 1243-1260 DOI: 10.1002/nau.23124.
• 4 Drake MJ, Doumouchtsis SK, Hashim H, Gammie A. Fundamentals of urodynamic practice, based on International Continence Society good urodynamic practices recommendations. Neurourol Urodyn 2018; 37 (S06): S50-S60 DOI: 10.1002/nau.23773.
• 5 Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women: a review. JAMA 2017; 318 (16) 1592-1604 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.12137.
• 6 Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L. et al; Members of Committees, Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence. Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2010; 29 (01) 213-240 DOI: 10.1002/nau.20870.
• 7 Peate I. Urinary incontinence in women: treatment recommendations. Br J Nurs 2019; 28 (22) 1486-1488 DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2019.28.22.1486.
• 8 Sussman RD, Syan R, Brucker BM. Guideline of guidelines: urinary incontinence in women. BJU Int 2020; 125 (05) 638-655 DOI: 10.1111/bju.14927.
• 9 Abrams P, Andersson KE, Apostolidis A. et al; members of the committees. 6th International Consultation on Incontinence. Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse and faecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2018; 37 (07) 2271-2272 DOI: 10.1002/nau.23551.
• 10 American Urogynecologic Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion: evaluation of uncomplicated stress urinary incontinence in women before surgical treatment. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2014; 20 (05) 248-251 DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000113.
• 11 Al Mousa RT, Al Dossary N, Hashim H. The role of urodynamics in females with lower urinary tract symptoms. Arab J Urol 2019; 17 (01) 2-9 DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2019.1589931.
• 12 Clement KD, Lapitan MC, Omar MI, Glazener CM. Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults: A short version Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 2015; 34 (05) 407-412 DOI: 10.1002/nau.22584.
• 13 Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Febrasgo).. Incontinência urinária de esforço. São Paulo: Febrasgo; 2021. . (Protoloco No. 50/Comissão Nacional Especializada em Uroginecologia e Cirurgia Vaginal).
• 14 Nager CW, Brubaker L, Litman HJ. et al; Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network. A randomized trial of urodynamic testing before stress-incontinence surgery. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (21) 1987-1997 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113595.
• 15 Lucas MG, Bosch RJ, Burkhard FC. et al; European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 2012; 62 (06) 1118-1129 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.023.
• 16 Finazzi-Agro E, Gammie A, Kessler TM. et al. Urodynamics useless in female stress urinary incontinence? Time for some sense—a European expert consensus. Eur Urol Focus 2020; 6 (01) 137-145 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.07.031.
• 17 Serati M, Topazio L, Bogani G. et al. Urodynamics useless before surgery for female stress urinary incontinence: Are you sure? Results from a multicenter single nation database. Neurourol Urodyn 2016; 35 (07) 809-812 DOI: 10.1002/nau.22804.
• 18 Digesu GA, Hendricken C, Fernando R, Khullar V. Do women with pure stress urinary incontinence need urodynamics?. Urology 2009; 74 (02) 278-281 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.01.089.
• 19 Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2011; 22 (11) 1445-1457 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1542-9.
• 20 Yip SK, Fung K, Pang MW, Leung P, Chan D, Sahota D. A study of female urinary tract infection caused by urodynamic investigation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190 (05) 1234-1240 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.12.028.
• 21 Benseler A, Anglim B, Zhao ZY, Walsh C, McDermott CD. Antibiotic prophylaxis for urodynamic testing in women: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2021; 32 (01) 27-38 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04501-3.
• 22 Cameron AP, Campeau L, Brucker BM. et al. Best practice policy statement on urodynamic antibiotic prophylaxis in the non-index patient. Neurourol Urodyn 2017; 36 (04) 915-926 DOI: 10.1002/nau.23253.
• 23 Altman AD, Robert M, Armbrust R. et al. Guidelines for vulvar and vaginal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society recommendations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223 (04) 475-485 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.039.
• 24 Imamura M, Hudson J, Wallace SA. et al. Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2019; 365: l1842 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l1842.
• 25 Ballard AV, Meyer I, Varner RE, Gleason JL. Pelvic organ prolapse. In: Berek JS. Berek and Novak's Gynecology. 16th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluvers; 2019: p. 1742-802
• 26 Martin L, Ossin D, Schachar J. et al. Comparison of methods to identify stress urinary incontinence in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2021; 27 (01) e127-e132 DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000858.
• 27 He Q, Li B, Zhang C, Zhang J, Luo D, Wang K. Treatment for refractory overactive bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sacral neuromodulation and onabotulinumtoxinA. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2021; 32 (03) 477-484 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04427-w.