SHOULD WARM INFUSION SOLUTION BE USED FOR URODYNAMIC STUDIES IN CHILDREN? A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED STUDY

The results of three times repeated filling cystometry and pressure flow studies in children with non-neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction

AIM

We previously reported that some urodynamic parameters change with repetitive filling in children with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). In this study, we aimed to search if three-times repeated filling cystometries (FC) and pressure-flow studies (PFS) would change the urodynamics parameters in children with non-neurogenic LUTD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All children with three repeated FC and PFS between June 2017 and December 2018 were included in the study. Urodynamic reports and charts were evaluated retrospectively. The first sensation of bladder filling (FSBF), maximum cystometric capacity (MCC), detrusor pressure at the FSBF (P_{det.first.sens} ), maximum detrusor pressure during filling (P_det.fill.max ), presence of detrusor over activity, compliance, maximum urine flow (Qmax), detrusor pressure at the maximum urine flow (PdetQmax), residual urine and presence of detrusor sphincter dyssynergy (DSD) were compared among three-times repeated urodynamic studies.

RESULTS

Forty children were included in the study. 27 (67.5%) were girls and 13 (32.5%) were boys. Median age was 9 (3.4-17) years. Indications were LUTD with low grade vesicoureteral reflux in 19 (47.5%), LUTD refractory to conservative management in 13 (32.5%), urinary tract infection with LUTD in 6 (15%) and secondary enuresis in 2 (5%). P_{det.first.sens} , presence of DO, MCC, Qmax, PdetQmax, residual urine, flow pattern, and presence of DSD were comparable in all three repeated tests. The third FC may show decreased filling detrusor pressures and increased compliance with no change on capacity.

CONCLUSION

In children with non-neurogenic LUTD, three-times repeated FC and PFS present comparable results except FSBF, P_{det.fill.max,} and compliance at the third test.

Best practice in the assessment of bladder function in infants

The purpose of this article is to review normal developmental bladder physiology in infants and bladder dysfunction in conditions such as neurogenic bladder, posterior urethral valves and high grade vesicoureteric reflux. We contrast the classical concept that bladder function in nontoilet-trained children is thought to be 'reflexive' or 'uninhibited', with the results of more recent research showing that infants most commonly have a stable detrusor. The infant bladder is physiologically distinct from the state seen in older children or adults. The voiding pattern of the infant is characterized by an interrupted voiding stream due to lack of proper urinary sphincter relaxation during voiding. This is called physiologic detrusor sphincter dyscoordination and is different from the pathologic 'detrusor sphincter dyssynergy' seen in patients with neurogenic bladder. Urodynamic abnormalities in neonates born with spina bifida are common and depend on the level and severity of the spinal cord malformation. Upper neuron lesions most commonly lead to an overactive bladder with or without detrusor sphincter dyssynergy while a lower neuron lesion is associated with an acontractile detrusor with possible denervation of the external urinary sphincter. In infants with neurogenic bladder, the role of 'early prophylactic treatment (clean intermittent catheterization and anticholinergics)' versus initial 'watchful waiting and treatment as needed' is still controversial and needs more research. Many urodynamic-based interventions have been suggested in patients with posterior urethral valves and are currently under scrutiny, but their impact on the long-term outcome of the upper and lower urinary tract is still unknown. Cumulative data suggest that there is no benefit to early intervention regarding bladder function in infants with high-grade vesicoureteric reflux.

Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make a definitive, objective diagnosis. The aim is to help select the treatment most likely to be successful. The investigations are invasive and time consuming.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, led to more effective clinical care of people with urinary incontinence and better clinical outcomes.The intention was to test the following hypotheses in predefined subgroups of people with incontinence:(i) urodynamic investigations improve the clinical outcomes;(ii) urodynamic investigations alter clinical decision making;(iii) one type of urodynamic test is better than another in improving the outcomes of management of incontinence or influencing clinical decisions, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 19 February 2013), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in groups of people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamic test against another were included. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials involving around 1100 people were included but data were only available for 1036 women in seven trials, of whom 526 received urodynamics. There was some evidence of risk of bias. The four deaths and 12 dropouts in the control arm of one trial were unexplained.There was significant evidence that the tests did change clinical decision making. Women in the urodynamic arms of three trials were more likely to have their management changed (proportion with change in management compared with the control arm 17% versus 3%, risk ratio (RR) 5.07, 95% CI 1.87 to 13.74), although there was statistical heterogeneity. There was evidence from two trials that women treated after urodynamic investigations were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.31). On the other hand, in five trials women undergoing treatment following urodynamic investigation were not more likely to undergo surgery (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12).There was no statistically significant difference however in the number of women with urinary incontinence if they received treatment guided by urodynamics (37%) compared with those whose treatment was based on history and clinical findings alone (36%) (for example, RR for the number with incontinence after the first year 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21). It was calculated that the number of women needed to treat was 100 women (95% CI 86 to 114 women) undergoing urodynamics to prevent one extra individual being incontinent at one year.One trial reported adverse effects and no significant difference was found (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While urodynamic tests did change clinical decision making, there was some evidence that this did not result in better outcomes in terms of a difference in urinary incontinence rates after treatment. There was no evidence about their use in men, children, or people with neurological diseases. Larger definitive trials are needed in which people are randomly allocated to management according to urodynamic findings or to management based on history and clinical examination to determine if performance of urodynamics results in higher continence rates after treatment.

Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make a definitive objective diagnosis. The aim is to help to select the treatment most likely to be successful. The investigations are invasive and time consuming.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to discover if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis, compared to treatment based on history and examination, led to more effective clinical care of urinary incontinence and better clinical outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and CINAHL, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 24 May 2011), and the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in groups of people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamics against another. Trials were excluded if they did not report clinical outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven small trials involving around 400 people were included but data were only available for 385 women in five trials, of whom 197 received urodynamics. There was some evidence of risk of bias. The four deaths and 12 dropouts in the control arm of one trial were unexplained.There was some evidence that the tests did change clinical decision making. There was evidence from two trials that women treated after urodynamic investigations were more likely to receive drugs (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.31) but not, in three trials, surgery (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 7.75). Women in the urodynamic arms of two trials were more likely to have their management changed but this did not quite reach statistical significance (proportion with no change in management 76% versus 99%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10).However, there was not enough evidence to demonstrate whether or not this resulted in a clinical benefit. For example there was no statistically significant difference in the number of women with urinary incontinence if they received treatment guided by urodynamics (70%) versus those whose treatment was based on history and clinical findings alone (62%) (e.g. RR for number with incontinence after first year 1.23, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.55).No trials reported whether or not there were any adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While urodynamic tests may change clinical decision making, there was not enough evidence to suggest whether this would result in better clinical outcomes. There was no evidence abut their use in men, children or people with neurological diseases. Larger definitive trials are needed, in which people are randomly allocated to management according to urodynamic findings or to standard management based on history and clinical examination.

Urodynamic investigations for management of urinary incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Urodynamic tests are used to investigate people who have urinary incontinence or other urinary symptoms in order to make a definitive objective diagnosis. The aim is to help to select the treatment most likely to be successful. The investigations are invasive and time consuming.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to discover if treatment according to a urodynamic-based diagnosis led to clinical improvements in urinary incontinence, compared to treatment based on history and examination.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register. Date of the most recent search: April 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing clinical outcomes in groups of people who were and were not investigated using urodynamics, or comparing one type of urodynamics against another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Authors of one study were contacted for more information, including adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

Two small trials involving 128 women were included. In one small trial, women who were investigated with urodynamics were more likely to receive active treatment with drugs or surgery. However, the numbers in both trials were too small to determine if this affected clinical outcomes such as a reduction in incontinence.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

A larger definitive trial is needed, in which people are randomly allocated to management according to urodynamic findings or to standard management based on history and clinical examination.