Radiation Exposure During Videourodynamics: Establishing Risk Factors

Videourodynamics - role, benefits and optimal practice

Videourodynamics (VUDS) is an advanced diagnostic procedure that simultaneously combines functional and anatomical evaluation of the lower urinary tract. The goal of this synchronous assessment is to promote accurate diagnosis of the aetiology responsible for patient symptoms, improving therapeutic decision-making. Overall, high-quality VUDS is advocated when other tests such as traditional urodynamics might not provide sufficient data to guide therapy, particularly in patients with complex, persistent or recurrent dysfunctions of the lower urinary tract. Additionally, VUDS is often crucial in the follow-up monitoring of many patients with these dysfunctions. A VUDS study is frequently considered a gold standard in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, female bladder outlet obstruction or congenital anomalies of the lower urinary tract. Nevertheless, this specialized test should be limited to patients in whom VUDS data add value. Particularly, reliable studies comparing the effect of diagnosis with and without imaging on management outcomes are lacking, and no standardized procedures for undertaking VUDS are available. Additionally, patients should be carefully selected for VUDS evaluation, considering the increased cost and risks associated with radiological imaging. In routine practice, clinicians should balance the additional value of synchronous imaging and the enhanced diagnostic precision of VUDS against the limitations of this approach, which mainly include an uncertain effect of VUDS on final treatment outcomes.

Indications and added value of videourodynamics in men with spinal cord injury

Purpose

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the indications and additional information provided by videourodynamic study (VUDS) over urodynamic studies (UDS) in men with spinal cord injury (SCI) and neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). The secondary aim was to determine the added value of VUDS and its impact on bladder management.

Materials and Methods

Single-centre retrospective study of all men with SCI who underwent VUDS between 2011 and 2021. Participant characteristics, clinical data and indications for UDS and VUDS as well as bladder management were recorded. The added value of VUDS was defined as additional information not provided by standard UDS that impacted on bladder management (choice of voiding mode, surgical indication or type of surgery).

Results

Eighty-eight men with a median age of 52 years were included. In 20 men who were unable to perform self-catheterisation, the VUDS clarified the nature and extent of the obstruction and enabled targeted surgery to achieve reflex bladder emptying in all of them. VUDS also clarified the type and level of obstruction in 28 patients, enabling targeted surgery in 24. In 11 men, VUDS was performed as part of the preoperative assessment for a Brindley procedure or after this operation if a complication occurred during follow-up to confirm the need for further surgery or to target surgical revision. Overall, VUDS had added value in 59 patients (67%).

Conclusions

VUDS had added value over UDS in specific situations; the additional information provided impacted on bladder management in men with SCI and NLUTD.

Radiation exposure during videourodynamic testing: Is dose reduction possible using a standardized protocol?

AIMS

To evaluate the impact of a protocol for standardized image capture during video urodynamics (VUD) on radiation exposure. Secondly, to categorize radiation exposure by condition warranting VUD and to identify clinical variables that correlate with increased radiation exposure.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients underwent VUD using our standardized protocol. All images were taken using low dose and pulsed settings. Four images are captured: one scout image, one filling image, one voiding image, and one post-void image. If the patient is unable to void with the catheter in place, the catheter is removed and a second image is taken during an attempt at unintubated flow. If vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is identified, an alternate protocol is entered to document parameters. The mean radiation exposure measured in dose area product (DAP), fluoroscopy time, and number of images were noted and compared with previously published fluoroscopy data collected at our institution before protocol implementation.

RESULTS

The mean fluoroscopy exposure after the implementation of our protocol was 273.5 mGy/cm² taking 5.2 images in 4.5 seconds. Protocol implementation leads to a 51.2% reduction in radiation exposure calculated by mean DAP (P < .0001) and a 96.5% reduction in fluoroscopy time (P < .0001). The presence of VUR, fluoroscopy time, and body mass index (BMI) > 25 were associated with higher radiation exposure (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Implementation and adherence to a standardized protocol for fluoroscopy led to a reduction in radiation exposure fluoroscopy time. The presence of VUR, fluoroscopy time, and BMI > 25 were associated with higher radiation exposure.