Identifying patients who require urodynamic testing before surgery for stress incontinence based on questionnaire information and surgical history

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. To determine whether knowledge about previous surgical history for incontinence and responses to a validated lower urinary tract symptom questionnaire for women could identify those who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods. A retrospective analysis of all women who completed the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire (UDI-6) and then underwent complete urodynamic studies was conducted. The critical urodynamic diagnoses to determine before anti-incontinence surgery were defined as coexisting SUI and detrusor instability (DI), Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O, and DI alone in women suspected clinically of having SUI. Models were established for deciding who should undergo urodynamic studies on the basis of questionnaire responses and information about previous surgical history. Cost savings and the ability of the various models to identify patients with critical urodynamic diagnoses were calculated. Results. A total of 174 women completed the UDI-6 and underwent urodynamics studies. Sixty-two had SUI (36%), 54 had DI (31%), 18 had both SUI and DI (10%), and 19 women suspected of having SUI were found instead to have DI (11%). Among women with SUI, 39 had a Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O (63%). No group of question responses or combination of question responses and presence of previous incontinence surgery was able to identify all three critical urodynamic diagnoses with statistical significance. Still, the combination of a response of '2' or '3' to question 3 on the UDI-6 and a positive history of previous surgery would have identified 91% of the critical diagnoses, and a substantial cost savings would have been realized. Conclusions. Using the UDI-6 and information obtained from the patient's history to determine who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for SUI can result in substantial cost savings without sacrificing patient care. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)506-511
Number of pages6
JournalUrology
Volume55
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2000

Fingerprint

Stress Urinary Incontinence
Urodynamics
History
Cost Savings
Equipment and Supplies
Pressure
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
Surveys and Questionnaires
Patient Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

@article{146f9be101eb40efabce807db448da48,
title = "Identifying patients who require urodynamic testing before surgery for stress incontinence based on questionnaire information and surgical history",
abstract = "Objectives. To determine whether knowledge about previous surgical history for incontinence and responses to a validated lower urinary tract symptom questionnaire for women could identify those who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods. A retrospective analysis of all women who completed the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire (UDI-6) and then underwent complete urodynamic studies was conducted. The critical urodynamic diagnoses to determine before anti-incontinence surgery were defined as coexisting SUI and detrusor instability (DI), Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O, and DI alone in women suspected clinically of having SUI. Models were established for deciding who should undergo urodynamic studies on the basis of questionnaire responses and information about previous surgical history. Cost savings and the ability of the various models to identify patients with critical urodynamic diagnoses were calculated. Results. A total of 174 women completed the UDI-6 and underwent urodynamics studies. Sixty-two had SUI (36{\%}), 54 had DI (31{\%}), 18 had both SUI and DI (10{\%}), and 19 women suspected of having SUI were found instead to have DI (11{\%}). Among women with SUI, 39 had a Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O (63{\%}). No group of question responses or combination of question responses and presence of previous incontinence surgery was able to identify all three critical urodynamic diagnoses with statistical significance. Still, the combination of a response of '2' or '3' to question 3 on the UDI-6 and a positive history of previous surgery would have identified 91{\%} of the critical diagnoses, and a substantial cost savings would have been realized. Conclusions. Using the UDI-6 and information obtained from the patient's history to determine who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for SUI can result in substantial cost savings without sacrificing patient care. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.",
author = "Lemack, {Gary E.} and Zimmern, {Philippe E.}",
year = "2000",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00546-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "55",
pages = "506--511",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identifying patients who require urodynamic testing before surgery for stress incontinence based on questionnaire information and surgical history

AU - Lemack, Gary E.

AU - Zimmern, Philippe E.

PY - 2000/4

Y1 - 2000/4

N2 - Objectives. To determine whether knowledge about previous surgical history for incontinence and responses to a validated lower urinary tract symptom questionnaire for women could identify those who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods. A retrospective analysis of all women who completed the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire (UDI-6) and then underwent complete urodynamic studies was conducted. The critical urodynamic diagnoses to determine before anti-incontinence surgery were defined as coexisting SUI and detrusor instability (DI), Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O, and DI alone in women suspected clinically of having SUI. Models were established for deciding who should undergo urodynamic studies on the basis of questionnaire responses and information about previous surgical history. Cost savings and the ability of the various models to identify patients with critical urodynamic diagnoses were calculated. Results. A total of 174 women completed the UDI-6 and underwent urodynamics studies. Sixty-two had SUI (36%), 54 had DI (31%), 18 had both SUI and DI (10%), and 19 women suspected of having SUI were found instead to have DI (11%). Among women with SUI, 39 had a Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O (63%). No group of question responses or combination of question responses and presence of previous incontinence surgery was able to identify all three critical urodynamic diagnoses with statistical significance. Still, the combination of a response of '2' or '3' to question 3 on the UDI-6 and a positive history of previous surgery would have identified 91% of the critical diagnoses, and a substantial cost savings would have been realized. Conclusions. Using the UDI-6 and information obtained from the patient's history to determine who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for SUI can result in substantial cost savings without sacrificing patient care. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

AB - Objectives. To determine whether knowledge about previous surgical history for incontinence and responses to a validated lower urinary tract symptom questionnaire for women could identify those who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Methods. A retrospective analysis of all women who completed the Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 questionnaire (UDI-6) and then underwent complete urodynamic studies was conducted. The critical urodynamic diagnoses to determine before anti-incontinence surgery were defined as coexisting SUI and detrusor instability (DI), Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O, and DI alone in women suspected clinically of having SUI. Models were established for deciding who should undergo urodynamic studies on the basis of questionnaire responses and information about previous surgical history. Cost savings and the ability of the various models to identify patients with critical urodynamic diagnoses were calculated. Results. A total of 174 women completed the UDI-6 and underwent urodynamics studies. Sixty-two had SUI (36%), 54 had DI (31%), 18 had both SUI and DI (10%), and 19 women suspected of having SUI were found instead to have DI (11%). Among women with SUI, 39 had a Valsalva leak point pressure less than 60 cm H2O (63%). No group of question responses or combination of question responses and presence of previous incontinence surgery was able to identify all three critical urodynamic diagnoses with statistical significance. Still, the combination of a response of '2' or '3' to question 3 on the UDI-6 and a positive history of previous surgery would have identified 91% of the critical diagnoses, and a substantial cost savings would have been realized. Conclusions. Using the UDI-6 and information obtained from the patient's history to determine who should undergo urodynamic testing before surgery for SUI can result in substantial cost savings without sacrificing patient care. Copyright (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034020331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034020331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00546-4

DO - 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00546-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 10736492

AN - SCOPUS:0034020331

VL - 55

SP - 506

EP - 511

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 4

ER -