Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Apr 28;2015(4):CD011179.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011179.pub2.

Invasive urodynamic studies for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with voiding dysfunction

Keiran David Clement  1 , Helena Burden, Katherine Warren, Marie Carmela M Lapitan, Muhammad Imran Omar, Marcus J Drake
Affiliations

Invasive urodynamic studies for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with voiding dysfunction

Keiran David Clement et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Invasive urodynamic tests are used to investigate men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and voiding dysfunction to determine a definitive objective diagnosis. The aim is to help clinicians select the treatment that is most likely to be successful. These investigations are invasive and time-consuming.

Objectives: To determine whether performing invasive urodynamic investigation, as opposed to other methods of diagnosis such as non-invasive urodynamics or clinical history and examination alone, reduces the number of men with continuing symptoms of voiding dysfunction. This goal will be achieved by critically appraising and summarising current evidence from randomised controlled trials related to clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. This review is not intended to consider whether urodynamic tests are reliable for making clinical diagnoses, nor whether one type of urodynamic test is better than another for this purpose.The following comparisons were made.• Urodynamics versus clinical management.• One type of urodynamics versus another.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, issue 10), MEDLINE (1 January 1946 to Week 4 October 2014), MEDLINE In-Process and other non-indexed citations (covering 27 November 2014; all searched on 28 November 2014), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (1 January 2010 to Week 47 2014, searched on 28 November 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched on 1 December 2014 and 3 December 2014, respectively), as well as the reference lists of relevant articles.

Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in men who were and were not investigated with the use of invasive urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamics against another, were included. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes.

Data collection and analysis: Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

Main results: We included two trials, but data were available for only 339 men in one trial, of whom 188 underwent invasive urodynamic studies. We found evidence of risk of bias, such as lack of outcome information for 24 men in one arm of the trial.Statistically significant evidence suggests that the tests did change clinical decision making. Men in the invasive urodynamics arm were more likely to have their management changed than men in the control arm (proportion with change in management 24/188 (13%) vs 0/151 (0%), risk ratio (RR) 39.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.42 to 642.74). However, the quality of the evidence was low.Low-quality evidence indicates that men in the invasive urodynamics group were less likely to undergo surgery as treatment for voiding LUTS (164/188 (87%) vs 151/151 (100%), RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.92).Investigators observed no difference in urine flow rates before and after surgery for LUTS (mean percentage increase in urine flow rate, 140% in invasive urodynamic group vs 149% in immediate surgery group, P value = 0.13). Similarly, they found no differences between groups with regards to International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (mean percentage decrease in IPSS score, 58% in invasive urodynamics group vs 59% in immediate surgery group, P value = 0.22).No evidence was available to demonstrate whether differences in management equated to improved health outcomes, such as relief of symptoms of voiding dysfunction or improved quality of life.No evidence from randomised trials revealed the adverse effects associated with invasive urodynamic studies.

Authors' conclusions: Although invasive urodynamic testing did change clinical decision making, we found no evidence to demonstrate whether this led to reduced symptoms of voiding dysfunction after treatment. Larger definitive trials of better quality are needed, in which men are randomly allocated to management based on invasive urodynamic findings or to management based on findings obtained by other diagnostic means. This research will show whether performance of invasive urodynamics results in reduced symptoms of voiding dysfunction after treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

One of the authors of this review (MD) is the Chief Investigator of the ongoing trial UPSTREAM (Drake 2014).

Figures

1
1
PRISMA study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Urodynamics vs clinical management, Outcome 1 Number of men still obstructed at 6 months post surgery (objective).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Urodynamics vs clinical management, Outcome 2 Number treated with surgery.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Urodynamics vs clinical management, Outcome 3 Number whose treatment was changed after assessment with or without urodynamics.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

De Lima 2003 {published data only}
    1. Lima ML, Netto NR Jr. Urodynamic studies in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Brazilian Journal of Urology 2003;29(5):418‐22. - PubMed
Kristjansson 1999 {published data only}
    1. Kristjansson B. A randomised evaluation of routine urodynamics in patients with LUTS. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology Supplementum 1999;33(Suppl 200):9.

References to studies excluded from this review

Boormans 2007 {published data only}
    1. Boormans JL, Venrooij GE, Boon TA. Invasively estimated International Continence Society obstruction classification versus noninvasively assessed bladder outlet obstruction probability in treatment recommendation for LUTS suggestive of BPH. Urology 2007;69(3):485‐90. - PubMed
Ding 1998 {published data only}
    1. Ding YY, Lieu PK. Comparison of three methods of quantifying urethral resistance in men . Urology 1998;52(5):858‐62. - PubMed
English 2012 {published data only}
    1. English S. Usefulness of urodynamics in males with lower urinary tract symptoms (Abstract number 36). BJU International 2012;109(Suppl s4):22.
Klingler 1996 {published data only}
    1. Klingler HC, Maderbacher S, Schmidbauer CP. Impact of different sized catheters on pressure‐flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourology and Urodynamics 1996;15(5):473‐81. - PubMed
Losco 2013 {published data only}
    1. Losco G, Keedle L, King Q. Non‐invasive urodynamics predicts outcome prior to surgery for prostatic obstruction (Abstract number 37). BJU International 2013;111(Suppl S1):31. - PubMed
Tanabe 2011 {published data only}
    1. Tanabe T, Ishizuka O, Ichino M, Ogawa T, Imamura T, Kurizaki Y, et al. Analysis of the pressure‐flow study in weak detrusor patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy. LUTS: Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms 2011;3(2):109‐12. - PubMed
Zhao 2006 {published data only}
    1. Zhao S‐C, Zheng S‐B, Tan W‐L, Zhang P, Qi H. Pressure‐flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a study comparing suprapubic and transurethral methods. Asian Journal of Andrology 2006;8(6):731‐5. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

Drake 2014 {published data only}
    1. Drake MJ. Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial: Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) for diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men. NIHR Project Portfolio. HTA number ‐ 12/140/01. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/1214001 (accessed 19 August 2014). - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

Aboseif 1994
    1. Aboseif SR, Konety B, Schmidt RA, Goldfien SH, Tanagho EA, Narayan PA. Preoperative urodynamic evaluation: does it predict the degree of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy?. Urologia Internationalis 1994;53(2):68‐73. - PubMed
Abrams 2002
    1. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub‐committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourology Urodynamics 2002;21(2):167‐78. - PubMed
AHCPR 1996
    1. Fantl JA, Newman DK, Colling J, DeLancey JOL, Keeys C, Loughery R, et al. Chapter 2. Identifying and evaluating urinary incontinence. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, editor(s). Urinary Incontinence in Adults: Acute and Chronic Management. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1996.
Belal 2006
    1. Belal M, Abrams P. Noninvasive methods of diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in men. Part 2. Noninvasive urodynamics and combination of measures. The Journal of Urology 2006;176(1):29‐35. - PubMed
Chapple 2006
    1. Chapple CR, Roehrborn CG. A shifted paradigm for the further understanding, evaluation, and treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men: focus on the bladder. European Urology 2006;49(4):651‐9. - PubMed
Clement 2013
    1. Clement KD, Lapitan MCM, Omar MI, Glazener CMA. Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003195.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (editors). Chapter 9. Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Dmochowski 2005
    1. Dmochowski RR. Bladder outlet obstruction: etiology and evaluation. Reviews in Urology 2005; (7 Suppl 6) :S3‐S13. - PMC - PubMed
Eckhardt 2001
    1. Eckhardt MD, Venrooij GEPM, Boon TA. Symptoms and quality of life versus age, prostate volume, and urodynamic parameters in 565 strictly selected men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2001;57(4):A1‐A50, 591‐846. - PubMed
Foon 2012
    1. Foon R, Toozs‐Hobson P, Latthe P. Prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections after urodynamic studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008224.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Glasser 2007
    1. Glasser DB, Carson C III, Kang J‐H, Laumann EO. Prevalence of storage and voiding symptoms among men aged 40 years and older in a US population‐based study: results from the Male Attitudes Regarding Sexual Health study. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2007;61(8):1294–300. - PubMed
Golomb 1999
    1. Golomb J, Dotan Z, Leibovitch I, Mor Y, Ramon J. Can preoperative urodynamic examination allow us to predict the risk of incontinence after radical prostatectomy?. Progres en Urologie 1999;9(2):288‐91. - PubMed
Gorton 1999
    1. Gorton E, Stanton S. Women's attitudes to urodynamics: a questionnaire survey. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1999;106(8):851‐6. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Homma 1999
    1. Homma Y, Batista JE, Bauer SB, Griffiths DJ, Hilton P, Kramer G, et al. Chapter 9. Urodynamics. In: Abrams P, Wein A, Schussler B, Kawabi K, Bump R, Melchior H, et al. editor(s). Incontinence. First International Consultation on Incontinence. Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: The Evaluation and Treatment of Urinary Incontinence. Plymouth, UK: Health Publications Ltd, 1999.
Hosker 2009
    1. Hosker G, Rosier P, Gajewski J, Sand P. Dynamic testing. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A editor(s). Incontinence: 4th International Consultation on Incontinence. Paris: Health Publication Ltd, 2009:413‐522.
Kleinhans 1999
    1. Kleinhans B, Gerharz E, Melekos M, Weingärtner K, Kälble T, Riedmiller H. Changes of urodynamic findings after radical retropubic prostatectomy. European Urology 1999;35(3):217‐21; discussion 221‐2. - PubMed
Kortmann 2000
    1. Kortmann BBM, Sonke GS, Wijkstra H, Nordling J, Kallestrup E, Holm NR, et al. Intra‐ and inter‐investigator variation in the analysis of pressure‐flow studies in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2000;19(3):221‐32. - PubMed
Lose 1998
    1. Lose G, Fantl JA, Victor A, Walter S, Wells TL, Wyman J, et al. Outcome measures for research in adult women with symptoms of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Neurourology and Urodynamics 1998;17(3):255‐62. - PubMed
Monoski 2006
    1. Monoski MA, Gonzalez RR, Sandhu JS, Reddy B, Te AE. Urodynamic predictors of outcomes with photoselective laser vaporization prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and preoperative retention. Urology 2006;68(2):312‐7. - PubMed
NICE 2010
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men. NICE clinical guideline CG97. London: NHS National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), May 2010. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG97 (accessed 24 June 2014).
Oelke 2013
    1. Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, Michel MC, et al. EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow‐up of non‐neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. European Urology 2013;64(1):118‐40. - PubMed
Parsons 2010
    1. Parsons KJ. Benign prostatic hyperplasia and male lower urinary tract symptoms: epidemiology and risk factors. Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports 2010;5(4):212‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Robertson 1996
    1. Robertson AS, Griffiths C, Neal DE. Conventional urodynamics and ambulatory monitoring in the definition and management of bladder outflow obstruction. Journal of Urology 1996;155(2):506‐11. - PubMed
Seki 2006
    1. Seki N, Takei M, Yamaguchi A, Naito S. Analysis of prognostic factors regarding the outcome after a transurethral resection for symptomatic benign prostatic enlargement. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2006;25(5):428‐32. - PubMed
Shaw 2000
    1. Shaw C, Williams K, Assassa PR, Jackson C. Patient satisfaction with urodynamics: a qualitative study. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2000;32(6):1356‐63. - PubMed
Sonke 2000
    1. Sonke GS, Kortmann BBM, Verbeek ALM, Kiemeney LALM, Debruyne FMJ, Rosette JJMCH. Variability of pressure‐flow studies in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2000;19(6):637‐56. - PubMed
van Koeveringe 2011
    1. Koeveringe GA, Vahabi B, Andersson KE, Kirschner‐Herrmans R, Oelke M. Detrusor underactivity: a plea for new approaches to a common bladder dysfunction. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2011;30:723‐8. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms