Introduction and hypothesisPatient history is often insufficient to identify type of urinary incontinence (UI). Multichannel urodynamic testing (UDS) is often used to clarify the diagnosis. Dynamic cystoscopy (DC) is a… Click to show full abstract
Introduction and hypothesisPatient history is often insufficient to identify type of urinary incontinence (UI). Multichannel urodynamic testing (UDS) is often used to clarify the diagnosis. Dynamic cystoscopy (DC) is a novel approach for testing bladder function. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the diagnostic agreement of UDS and DC in evaluating women with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI).MethodsWomen presenting with MUI were approached for enrollment if UDS and DC were planned for further investigation. Investigators were blinded to history and comparative test results. McNemar’s test and kappa coefficient were calculated to assess agreement between UDS and DC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to explore the best possible filling sensation cutoffs for DC that would best predict the filling sensation cutoffs from UDS.ResultsSixty participants were included, of whom, four were excluded for protocol violation. For the primary outcome measure of agreement, UDS and DC were concordant in 44/56 of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) cases (79%) with a κ= 0.54 and in 43/56 of urinary urge incontinence (UUI) cases (77%) with a κ= 0.54, indicating moderate, nearly substantial agreement. ROC analysis identified the best prediction of DC first urge to void as 148 cm3, strong urge 215 cm3, and maximum capacity at 246 cm3. These parameters were used to compare UDS UUI to DC UUI and resulted in a κ = 0.61 (p = 0.37), indicating substantial agreement.ConclusionsWhen compared with UDS, DC shows moderate agreement for detection of SUI and substantial agreement for detection of UUI.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.