The tolerability of urodynamic studies and flexible cysto‐urethroscopy used in the assessment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms

• Published in: BJU international Vol. 84; no. 4; pp. 449 - 453
• Main Authors: KORTMANN, B. B. M, SONKE, G. S, D'ANCONA, F. C. H, FLORATOS, D. L, DEBRUYNE, F. M. J, DE LA ROSETTE, J. J. M. C. H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Science Ltd 01.09.1999; Blackwell
• Subjects: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; benign prostatic obstruction; Biological and medical sciences; Cystoscopy; Endoscopy; Humans; Investigative techniques of renal and urinary tract function; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); LUTS; Male; Medical sciences; morbidity; Pain - etiology; Pain Measurement; Prostatic Hyperplasia - complications; Prostatic Hyperplasia - physiopathology; Surveys and Questionnaires; tolerability; Urinary Retention - etiology; Urinary tract; Urodynamics; Human; Urinary system disease; Questionnaire; Prostate disease; Cystoscopy; Tolerance; Male; Morbidity; Cystometry; Flexible; Complication; Prostatism; Male genital diseases
• ISSN: 1464-4096; 1464-410X
• DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00222.x

Objective To determine the overall tolerability of urodynamic studies used in the assessment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), by assessing the objective and subjective morbidity experienced during and after urodynamic studies, and to assess the voiding complaints caused by the combination of urodynamic studies with flexible cysto‐urethroscopy. Patients and methods A total of 103 men with LUTS, who underwent a urodynamic study combined with flexible cysto‐urethroscopy, completed a questionnaire designed to assess objective and subjective symptoms and degree of bother, with emphasis on the urodynamic study. In addition, a urine specimen was analysed and cultured. In all, 78 patients who underwent a second urodynamic study completed the questionnaire twice. Results The results of the first questionnaire showed that more than half of the patients experienced some urge after the urodynamic study and cysto‐urethroscopy (56%); 35% of the patients experienced little and 19% experienced severe voiding discomfort after the combined investigations, compared with 24% and 5%, respectively, after a urodynamic study alone. Three patients (3%) had a symptomatic urinary tract infection. Haematuria, increased voiding frequency and increased nocturia occurred occasionally. Most of the patients found the urodynamic study less bothersome than they had expected (64%) and only 9% found it worse than expected. The overall degree of discomfort, experienced during and after the urodynamic study combined with cysto‐urethroscopy, was low, and after a second urodynamic study was even lower. Conclusion In contrast with earlier results, this clinic‐based urodynamic investigation was associated with a low proportion of urinary tract infection, and low objective and subjective morbidity. The combination of a urodynamic study with a flexible cysto‐urethroscopy does not cause significant additional voiding complaints. Most patients find urodynamic studies tolerable and not very bothersome.