Volume 33, Issue 5 pp. 581-586
Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence - Research Society 2013

Do patients with symptoms and signs of lower urinary tract dysfunction need a urodynamic diagnosis? ICI-RS 2013

Peter F.W.M. Rosier

Corresponding Author

Peter F.W.M. Rosier

Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Correspondence to: Peter F.W.M. Rosier, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Urology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Ilias Giarenis

Ilias Giarenis

Department of Urogynaecology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
Francoise A. Valentini

Francoise A. Valentini

Hôpital Rothschild, Service de Médecine Physique et Réadaptation, Paris, France

Search for more papers by this author
Alan Wein

Alan Wein

University of Pennsylvania Health System Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, Los Angeles, Philadelphia

Search for more papers by this author
Linda Cardozo

Linda Cardozo

Department of Urogynaecology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 20 May 2014
Citations: 30
Christopher Chapple led the peer-review process as the Associate Editor responsible for the paper.
Conflict of interest: none.

Abstract

Aims

The ICI-RS Think Tank discussed the diagnostic process for patients who present with symptoms and signs of lower urinary tract (LUT) dysfunction. This manuscript reflects the Think Tank's summary and opinion.

Methods

An overview of the existing evidence and consensus regarding urodynamic testing was presented and discussed in relation to contemporary treatment strategies.

Results

Evidence of the validity of the diagnostic process in relation to the contemporary management paradigm is incomplete, scattered, and sometimes conflicting and therefore a process redesign may be necessary. The Think Tanks' suggestion, contained in this manuscript, is that the symptoms and signs that the patients present can be more precisely delineated as syndromes. The overactive bladder syndrome (OAB-S); the stress urinary incontinence syndrome (SUI-S); the urinary incontinence syndrome (UI-S); the voiding dysfunction syndrome (VD-S); and or the neurogenic LUT dysfunction syndrome (NLUTD-S) may become evidence based starting point for initial management. Consistent addition of the word syndrome, if adequately defined, acknowledges the uncertainty, but will improve outcome and will improve selection of patients that need further (invasive) diagnosis before management.

Conclusions

The ICS-RS Think Tank has summarized the level of evidence for UDS and discussed the evidence in association with the currently changing management paradigm. The ICI-RS Think Tank recommends that the diagnostic process for patients with LUTD can be redesigned. Carefully delineated and evidence based LUTD syndromes may better indicate, personalize and improve the outcome of initial management, and may also contribute to improved and rational selection of patients for invasive UDS. Neurourol. Urodynam. 33:581–586, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.