A cross sectional study to assess the need of urodynamic studies in lower urinary tract patients attending an urogynaecology clinic

Deepa Joshi, K. Lalitha, Piyush Joshi, Satish Saroshe


Background: Urodynamic studies are gold standard to objectively diagnose lower urinary tract symptoms and dysfunction Aims and Objectives: To correlate clinical symptoms of lower urinary tract with urodynamic study to know whether urodynamics is really required routinely in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

Methods: The study was conducted at Century hospital Hyderabad and Dr Lalitha’s urogynaecology clinic Hyderabad, India during 15 days; from 2 September 2015 till 16 September 2015 with 48 patients. All cases coming to urogynaecology clinic who were taken up for urodynamic study were included. Statistical analysis was done by  student’s t test with p<0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results: Total patients with urinary frequency were 13 out of which 7 (53.84%) had cystometric capacity of less than 200ml. Out of 16 patients with urgency and urge incontinence 10 (62.50%) had high detrussor pressure during voiding. 50% patients had max cystometric capacity <200ml. Out of 7 patients with SUI (stress urinary incontinence) only one had genuine stress incontinence; all oth-ers had mixed incontinence with either raised EMG or raised Pdet. Out of 15 patients with com-plaints of voiding dysfunction 14 (93.33%) had low flow rate that is Qmax <15ml/sec. Out of 15 patients 2 had features of DSD (detrussor sphincter dyssynergia). Total 6 patients had raised EMG as cause for difficult voiding.

Conclusions: Detrusor sphincter dyssynergia as a cause of dysfunctional voiding is diagnosed using urodynamic study with EMG. Urodynamic study is important and useful tool to evaluate female lower urinary tract symptoms and unnecessary delay in doing a detailed urodynamics should be avoided.


Detrussor sphincter dyssynergia, SUI. Urogynaecology, Urodynamic studies

Full Text:



Rosier PF. The evidence for urodynamic investigation of patients with symptoms of urinary incontinence; F1000 Prime Rep. 2013;5:8.

Amundsen C, Lau M, English SF, McGuire EJ. Urinary symptoms correlate with urinary findings? J Urol. 1999;161(6):1871-4.

Baharak A, Halifax NS, Farrell SA, Halifax NS, SOGC Committee Opinion on Urodynamics Testing. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30(8):717-21.

Fitz Gerald MP, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence symptom scores and urodynamic diagnoses. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(1):30-5.

Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Salvatore S. Overactive bladder symptoms: do we need urodynamics? Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22(2):105-8.

Castleden CM, Duffin HM, Asher MJ. Clinical and urodynamic studies in 100 elderly incontinent patients. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1981;282(6270):1103-5.

Clarke B. The role of urodynamic assessment in the diagnosis of lower urinary tract disorders. International Urogynecology Journal. 1997;8(4):196-9.

Rizvi MR, Chughtai NG. Reliability of urodynamic interpretation in women presenting with urinary incontinence at a tertiary hospital. Urol Int. 2012;88(4):410-4.

Weidner AC, Myers ER, Visco AG, Cundiff GW, Bump RC. Which women with stress incontinence require urodynamic evaluation? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(2):20-7.

Hameed N, Asghar MA, Waqar A. Urodynamic Findings in Female Patients Reporting With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2009;21(1).