Urodynamic studies in the surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia

Rosier P, Serati M, Solomon E, van Koeveringe G, Bachmann LM, Kessler TM. Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing the Clinical Value of Urodynamic Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context

The role of urodynamic studies (UDSs) in the diagnosis of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is crucial. Although expert statements and guidelines underline their value for clinical decision-making in various clinical settings, the academic debate as to their impact on patient outcomes continues.

Objective

To summarise the evidence from all randomised controlled trials assessing the clinical usefulness of UDS in the management of LUTS.

Evidence acquisition

For this systematic review, searches were performed without language restrictions in three electronic databases until November 18, 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled study design and allocation to receive UDS or not prior to any clinical management. Quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently, using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed on the uniformly reported outcome parameters.

Evidence synthesis

Eight trials were included, and all but two focused on women with pure or predominant stress urinary incontinence (SUI). A meta-analysis of six studies including 942 female patients was possible for treatment success, as defined by the authors (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.93–1.07), indicating no difference in efficacy when managing women with UDS.

Conclusions

Although UDSs are not replaceable in diagnostics, since there is no other equivalent method to find out exactly what the lower urinary tract problem is, there are little data supporting its impact on outcomes. Randomised controlled trials have focussed on a small group of women with uncomplicated SUI and showed no added value, but these findings cannot be extrapolated to the overall patient population with LUTS, warranting further well-designed trials.

Patient summary

Despite urodynamics being the gold standard to assess lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), as it is the only method that can specify lower urinary tract dysfunction, more studies assessing the clinical usefulness of urodynamic studies (UDSs) in the management of LUTS are needed. UDS investigation is not increasing the probability of success in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.

Where can urodynamic testing help assess male lower urinary tract symptoms?

Urodynamic studies assess the function of the bladder and bladder outlet. They are often useful in the assessment and diagnosis of patients presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The evidence regarding the value and risks of invasive urodynamics remains insufficient. However, men with LUTS who are assessed by invasive urodynamics are more likely to have their management changed and less likely to undergo surgery. This review discusses the role of urodynamic diagnosis and application in the diagnosis and treatment of male LUTS.

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

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.

Predictive value of resistive index, detrusor wall thickness and ultrasound estimated bladder weight regarding the outcome after transurethral prostatectomy for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the value of three parameters from preoperative ultrasonography in predicting the outcome of transurethral prostatectomy in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction.

METHODS

A total of 239 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction entering our department for surgical therapy were prospectively recruited. All of them underwent both ultrasound and urodynamics before receiving standard transurethral prostatectomy by the same team of surgeons. For 202 patients, 6-month follow-up data were available after the surgery, including the International Prostate Symptom Score, the Quality of Life score and the maximum flow rate. Preoperative data stratified by different degree of recovery were compared and the influence of ultrasound parameters on the surgical outcome was analyzed by using logistic regression and receiver-operator characteristic curve analyses.

RESULTS

Baseline transitional zone index, intravesical prostatic protrusion, resistive index, detrusor wall thickness and ultrasonic estimation of bladder weight were significantly different between patients with an effective outcome and those with an ineffective outcome (P < 0.05). Resistive index, detrusor wall thickness and ultrasonic estimation of bladder weight were selected as independent factors correlated with the efficacy of transurethral prostatectomy by logistic regression (P < 0.05). All three factors had adequate area under receiver-operator characteristic curve with resistive index having the largest area (0.816, 95% CI 0.759-0.874). The combined positive predictive value in effective surgical outcome of resistive index, detrusor wall thickness and ultrasonic estimation was 96.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Resistive index, detrusor wall thickness and ultrasonic estimation adequately predict the outcome of transurethral prostatectomy. Measuring these parameters by preoperative ultrasound might aid in determining the need for surgical intervention.

Effects of electroacupuncture on benign prostate hyperplasia patients with lower urinary tract symptoms: a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial

We tested the effect of electroacupuncture (EA) on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients. A total of 42 BPH patients with LUTS were randomly assigned to either the EA group (EG), received 2 Hz EA for 20 min twice/week for a total of twelve treatments, or a sham EA group (CG), received sham EA. The increase of voiding volume, average flow rate, and maximal flow rate in the EG were 32.2 ± 104.4 mL, 1.2 ± 1.6 mL/sec, and 2.3 ± 3.7 mL/sec, respectively, from baseline value (before EA) using the measurement of an uroflowmetry. These increases were greater than -37.9 ± 120.4, -0.22 ± 2.7, and -0.3 ± 4.3, respectively, in the CG (P = .038, .026, and .030, resp.). The changes of prostate special antigen and international prostatic symptom score were not significantly different between two groups (P = .573, .175, resp.), suggesting the clinical improvement of 2 Hz EA was quite limited to the LUTS of patients with BPH.