Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

Use of Urodynamics by Gynecologists and Urologists in Brazil

DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744460 - volume 44 - Julho 2022

Mucio Barata Diniz, Marina Franklin Ribeiro, Luísa Aguiar Monteiro Dias, Marilene Vale de Castro Monteiro

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.

Full Text

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.

Introduction

Urodynamic studies (UDSs) are a set of tests that evaluate the storage and emptying of urine, and they are widely used by gynecologists and urologists in the management of urinary incontinence (UI) and to assess the function of the lower urinary tract. The objective of UDSs is to reproduce the patient's symptoms and make the pathophysiological correlation, identifying the factors that contribute to urinary tract dysfunction.1,2 The International Continence Society (ICS) recommends performing at least three stages of this exam, which are flowmetry, cystometry, and the pressure-flow study.3,4

The approach to female UI is divided into initial and specialized.5 The initial approach should include: anamnesis, physical examination with the stress test, urinalysis, urinary diary, and assessment of residual urinary volume.6 Recent guidelines6-9 suggest that, when the conservative treatment fails or when UI is defined as complicated, additional tests are needed, with UDSs are the main one. Patients classified as complicated UI are those with urine leakage associated with prolapse or urgency, patients with bladder symptoms emptying, those undergoing radical pelvic surgery or radiotherapy, those who have recurrences and patients in whom the initial approach did not define the clinical diagnosis.5,9,10 Despite their importance as functional tests, the role of UDSs in evaluating female patients with UI remains under debate regarding the situations in which they should be indicated.11

In order to know the indications for UDSs made by gynecologists and urologists in Brazil, where there is no filed of expertise in urogynecology, we performed a survey. The objectives of the present study were to verify whether UDSs are routinely used in the conservative and surgical approaches to female UI, in what other clinical situations they are requested by the participants, and to compareing the responses of gynecologists and urologists.

 

Methods

The present is an opinion survey aimed at Brazilian gynecologists and urologists and applied through a semistructured questionnaire. The study was approved by the Ethics in Research Committee of Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (under CAAE: 34191120.5.0000.5149), and was carried out between August 2020 and January 2021. The questionnaire was sent by email, by Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Brazilian Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Associations, Febrasgo, in Portuguese) and Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (Brazilian Society of Urology, SBU, in Portuguese), to 30 thousand gynecologists and urologists, and before answering, those who were willing to participate marked the consent form and were not identified after filling out the questionnarie.

The questionnaire consisted of questions about the clinic practice and requests for UDSs in approaching to female IU, and was developed by two specialists in gynecology and urology.

The main objective was to verify the percentage of participants who routinely requested UDSs before starting the conservative or surgical treatments of female UI. The other objectives were: to confirm whether UDSs are requested before the surgical treatment of female UI; to assess the main clinical conditions for which the participants request UDSs; to assess the availability of UDSs in the participants' location; to identify whether the surgical treatment for UI was based on the pressure of urine leakage; and to assess whether there was a difference in UDS indications between gynecologists and urologists. The sample calculation was not performed because it is an opinion poll.

The numerical variables are expressed in terms of their values of central tendency and variability, considering the nature of their distribution. The categorical variables are expressed in terms of absolute and relative frequencies. For the descriptive analysis of th variables with normal distribution, the results were expressed as means ± standard deviations. To compare the responses of gynecologists and urologists, the Student t-test was used, after the performance of the Levene test to verify the homogeneity of variances by group. For the categorical variables, the Pearson Chi-squared test (χ2) and the Fisher exact test were also used. In cases of significant association between two variables of interest, the odds ratio (OR) was evaluated. In all statistical calculations, the confidence level was set a 0.95. The statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States)software, version 21.0.

 

Results

Of 30 thousand questionnaries sent, only 329 (1.1%) were filled out. Out of those 329 participants, 238 (72.3%) were gynecologists and 91 (27.7%), urologists. Regarding the years of experience in the specialty, the average was of 21.2 years among the gynecologists, and most were female (60.9%), and 17.5 years among the urologists (93.4% of them male), with a statistically significant difference (p= 0.023 for of the years of professional experience, and p= 0.001 for gender). There was no statistically significant difference regarding professional qualification (postgraduate courses and specialization). As for the location where they work, most gynecologists worked in the capital city of their states (55.5%), but only 39.6% of urologists worked in the capital city (p= 0.023) (Table 1).

 

  Gynecologist
N (%)
Urologist
N (%)
p-valuea
Number of participants 238 (72,3%) 91 (27,7%)  
Female 145 (60,9%) 6 (6,6%) 0,001
Male 93 (39,1%) 85 (93,4%)  
Average years of professional experience 21,2 years 17,5 years 0,023**
Postgraduate or specialization 63 (26,5%) 19 (20,9%) 0,294
Practice in state's capital
Practice in countryside
132 (55,5%)
99 (41,6%)
36 (39,6%)
50 (54,9%)
0,023*
The UDS is available in your region 235 (98,7%) 91 (100%) 0,564*

 

Table 1
Characteristics of study participants

Urodynamic studies were available to the vast majority of participants (98.7% of gynecologists and 100% of urologists); 73% of gynecologists and 88% of urologists indicate UDSs in the preoperative period of anti-incontinence surgeries, and there was no statistical difference between the two groups; 53.4% of gynecologists and 62.6% of urologists do not indicate UDSs in the preoperative period of surgeries for genital prolapse, with no statistical difference between groups; and most gynecologists (73.5%) and urologists (86.6%) do not request UDSs before starting the conservative treatment of UI (Table 2).

 

Indications Gynecologist N= 238 Urologist
N= 91
p-value*
Do you recommend the urodynamic “in the preoperative period of anti-incontinence surgeries”?
yes
no

 


175 (73,5%)
63 (26,5%)

 


75 (82,4%)
16 (17,6%)

 


0,091
Why do you request the urodynamic before anti-incontinence surgery?
For Sling systhem Release
Becausee it is part of the protocol
For decision shared with the patient
For legal certainty

 


84 (35,3%)
25 (10,5%)
97 (40,8%)
64 (26,9%)

 


38 (41,8%)
8 (8,8%)
57 (62,2%)
48 (52,7%)
 
Do you recommend the urodynamic in “patients with genital prolapse with indication for surgical treatment”?
yes
no

 


111(46,6%)
127 (53,4%)

 


34 (37,4%)
57 (62,6%)

 


0,130
Do you recommend the urodynamic in “patients with mixed incontinence”?
Yes
Not

 


129 (54,2%)
109 (45,8%)

 


48 (52,7%)
43 (47,3%)

 


0,813
Do you indicate the urodynamics “in the initial approach of idiopathic OAB”?
Yes
Not

 


210 (88,2%)
28 (11,85%)

 


88 (96,7%)
3 (3,3%)

 


< 0,001
OR= 3,9
Do you request the urodynamic “before indicating conservative treatment”?
Yes
Not

 


63 (26,5%)
175 (73,5%)

 


12 (13,2%)
79 (86,6%)

 


0,010
OR= 2,4
The result of the urodynamic interferes with the type of anti-incontinence surgery”?
Yes
Sometimes
Not
Does not indicate surgery

 


115 (48,3%)
76 (32%)
31(13%)
16 (6,7%)

 


22 (24,2%)
36 (39,5%)
33 (36,3%)

 


0,001

 

Table 2
Indications of the urodynamic study

When asked about UDSs in cases of mixed incontinence, 54.2% of gynecologists and 52.7% of urologists indicated them. There was a statistical difference regarding the indication of UDSs in the approach to idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB), as urologists indicated this less frequently than gynecologists: 3.3% and 11.8% respectively (Table 2). Most urologists perform UDSs (71.4%) as opposed to gynecologists (27.7%), which was statistically significant (p= 0.001). Among the participants who perform UDSs, most use two urethral catheters, use a device made in Brazil, and perform the three main exams that are part of UDSs (uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure-flow study). When we evaluated the protocol for the performance of UDSs, we only observed a difference regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics, which was greater among urologists. The main piece of data from the UDSs to indicate anti-continence surgery was the pressure of urinary loss, both for gynecologists and urologists (Table 3).

 

Gynecologist
N= 238
Urologist
N = 91
p-value*
Do you perform urodynamic study?
Yes
Not

 


66 (27,7%)
172 (72,3%)

 


65 (71,4%)
26 (28,6%)

 


0,001
Which urinary catheter do you use
2 relief catheters
double lumen catheter

 


44 (78,6%)
12 (21,4%)

 


49 (75,4%)
16 (24,6%)
 
Your urodynamic device is:
National
Imported

 


57 (83,3%)
9 (13,7%)

 


63 (96,9%)
2 (3,1%)
 
Inform which item below is part of your urodynamic protocol:
Previous Uroculture
Anamnesis
Prophylactic antibiotic
validated urinary incontinence questionnaires

 


58 (87,9%)
60 (90,9%)
24 (36,4%)
39 (59,1%)

 


58 (89,2%)
62 (95,4%)
37 (56,9%)
37 (56,9%)
 
What urodynamic tests do you routinely perform in the workup of female UI?
Uroflowmetry
Cystometry
Measurement of residual volume after uroflowmetry
Urethral pressure profile

 


57 (100%)
57 (100%)
46 (80,7%)
9 (15,8%)
52 (91,2%)

 


56 (86,2%)
61 (93,8%
54 (83,1%)
2 (7,7%)
64 (98,5%)
 
What is the main UDS data to indicate anti-incontinence surgery?
loss pressure

 


174 (73,1%)

 


68 (74,7%)
 
What is the average cost of the urodynamic study? R$ 397,00 R$ 503,00  

 

Table 3
Routine of the urodynamic study

 

Discussion

Most Brazilian gynecologists and urologists participating in the present study do not request UDSs before starting the conservative treatment of UI. Most Brazilian gynecologists and urologists participating in the present study do not request UDSs before starting the conservative treatment of UI; and this clinical approach is in accordance with the main national and international protocols and guidelines that show there is no evidence that performing UDSs before the conservative treatment will result in lower rates of subsequent UI.12,13 However, gynecologists indicate UDSs more frequently in this situation than urologists (OR = 2.4). There is a consensus that these tests should not be indicated in the initial assessment of uncomplicated female UI.6-8,11

On the other hand, most participants request UDSs before the surgical treatment of female UI, with no statistical difference between gynecologists and urologists (73% and 88% respectively). Although the indications for UDSs are controversial, their performance can be waivered preoperatively in cases of uncomplicated UI, as shown in the study by Nager et al. (2012),14 who did not observe significant differences in the surgical outcomes of patients who did or did not undergo the exams. Routine UDSs in the preoperative period of uncomplicated stress UI (SUI) is not recommended by Febrasgo, the European Association of Urology (EAU), England's National Institute of Excellence in Health and Care (NICE), or the American College of Gynecology and Obstetrics (ACOG).7,10,13,15 Other authors point out that there are situations in which UDSs provide additional information to the clinical assessment, even in cases of uncomplicated SUI, and that these exams should be requested mainly in cases of suspected bladder-emptying dysfunction.16-18 When listing the main reasons to request UDSs preoperatively, the participants responded: in order to obtain authorization to use the synthetic sling (both in the private and public health care systems), because it is part of their institution's protocol, in orderto share decisions with the patient, and due to legal concerns. The other clinical indications for UDSs evaluated were genital prolapse, OAB, and mixed incontinence.

Regarding genital prolapse, 53% of gynecologists and 62% of urologists request UDSs preoperatively, with no statistical difference between groups. It was not possible to identify the main reason for this request, but it may be related to the investigation of occult UI and for the indication of anti-incontinence surgery in the same surgical act.19-21 In these cases, UDSs would be indicated for patients complaining of urine loss concomitant with prolapse or for the diagnosis of occult UI.17,19

Most gynecologists and urologists indicate UDSs in the initial approach to OAB (88.2% and 96.7% respectively), and there was a statistically significant difference between the groups (p= 0.001). There is a greater chance that urologists will request UDSs in this situation compared to gynecologists (OR = 3.9). There is no indication for UDSs in the initial approach to idiopathic OAB.6,7,16,21 This finding suggests the need to review the care protocols of the participants for idiopathic OAB.

Although most gynecologists (54.2%) and urologists (52.7%) indicate UDSs in the management of mixed UI, we observed that more than 40% of the participants do not request it for this clinical condition. The fact that there is no question about mixed urinary incontinence in the questionnaire may have contributed to this finding, and there may be a correlation with the fact that most participants request UDSs for OAB.11

Overall, UDSs are available to most participants. Comparing the both groups, there are more women in gynecology (60.9%) than in urology (6.6%). Most participants were gynecologists. Despite the voluntary random sample, gynecologists probably treat more women with UI than urologists; therefore, they had greater participation in the questionnaire. However, urologists (71%) perform more UDSs than gynecologists (27%).

Ideally, cystometry and the pressure-flow study should be performed with a double-lumen catheter, but a minority of participants use this catheter (21.4% of gynecologists and 24.6% of urologists), probably because t is 15 times more expensive than the two urethral catheters.3 The recording of leak pressure during cystometry was the main piece of data in the UDSs to indicate anti-incontinence surgery by most participants (73.1% of gynecologists and 74.7% of urologists).

Urinary tract infection is the most common complication after UDSs, estimated in 8.4% of cases, and the main risk factors are advanced age, diabetes mellitus, genital prolapse, previous anti-incontinence surgery, and recent urinary tract infection.20,21 The ACOG does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for UDSs, and a recent systematic review21 concluded that there are insufficient studies to recommend its routine use. However, Cameron et al.22 recommend a single oral dose of antibiotics before UDSs for women with neurogenic dysfunction, high postvoiding residual volume, asymptomatic bacteriuria, immunosuppression, age over 70 years, and those using an indwelling urinary catheter or intermittent catheterization.22,23 The use of prophylactic antibiotics before UDSs was indicated by 36.4% of gynecologists and 56.9% of urologists in the present study.

The main limitations of the present study were not classifying complicated and uncomplicated UI for each question in the questionnaire, and not correlating the request for UDSs in cases of genital prolapse with the investigation of occult UI. Another important limitation of our study was the participation of less than 10% of gynecologists and urologists registered in Brazil. These participants are probably more interested in female UI, especially gynecologists, who accounted for the majority of the sample. This is a limiting factor to extend our conclusion to all gynecologists and urologists in Brazil. The relevance of the present study was the characterization of the main indications for UDSs in this sample of Brazilian gynecologists and urologists.24-27

 

Conclusion

Most Brazilian gynecologists and urologists participating in the present study do not request UDSs before the conservative treatment of UI, according to national and internacional guidelines, and often request these exams before the surgical treatment of female UI. The indication for these exams in the initial approach of idiopathic OAB should be reviewed by the participants.


References

1 Hosker G. Special investigations for female incontinence. Womens Health Med.. 2005;2(06):15-19


2 Baines G, Da Silva AS, Araklitis G, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Recent advances in urodynamics in women. F1000Res. 2020;9:F1000-


3 Rosier PFWM, Schaefer W, Lose G. International Continence Society Good Urodynamic Practices and Terms 2016: urodynamics, uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure-flow study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(05):1243-1260


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


5 Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women: a review. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1592-1604


6 Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L. 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


7 Peate I. Urinary incontinence in women: treatment recommendations. Br J Nurs. 2019;28(22):1486-1488


8 Sussman RD, Syan R, Brucker BM. Guideline of guidelines: urinary incontinence in women. BJU Int. 2020;125(05):638-655


9 Abrams P, Andersson KE, Apostolidis A. 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


10 . Committee opinion: evaluation of uncomplicated stress urinary incontinence in women before surgical treatment. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(05):248-251


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


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


13 . . Incontinência urinária de esforço. 2021;:-


14 Nager CW, Brubaker L, Litman HJ. A randomized trial of urodynamic testing before stress-incontinence surgery. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1987-1997


15 Lucas MG, Bosch RJ, Burkhard FC. EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2012;62(06):1118-1129


16 Finazzi-Agro E, Gammie A, Kessler TM. Urodynamics useless in female stress urinary incontinence? Time for some sense—a European expert consensus. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(01):137-145


17 Serati M, Topazio L, Bogani G. 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


18 Digesu GA, Hendricken C, Fernando R, Khullar V. Do women with pure stress urinary incontinence need urodynamics?. Urology. 2009;74(02):278-281


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


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


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


22 Cameron AP, Campeau L, Brucker BM. Best practice policy statement on urodynamic antibiotic prophylaxis in the non-index patient. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(04):915-926


23 Altman AD, Robert M, Armbrust R. Guidelines for vulvar and vaginal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society recommendations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(04):475-485


24 Imamura M, Hudson J, Wallace SA. Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2019;365:l1842-


25 . . Berek and Novaks Gynecology. 2019;:1742-802


26 Martin L, Ossin D, Schachar J. Comparison of methods to identify stress urinary incontinence in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(01):e127-e132


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