Yonsei Med J.  2006 Aug;47(4):534-541. 10.3349/ymj.2006.47.4.534.

A Comparative Study of Patient Experiences of Conventional Fluoroscopic and Four-Hour Ambulatory Urodynamic Studies

• Oh SJ
• Ku JH
• Son H
• Jeong JY

• KMID: 1779504
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2006.47.4.534

Abstract

We assessed several emotional variables in patients experiencing conventional urodynamic and ambulatory urodynamic monitoring (AUM) to verify the hypothesis that AUM is tolerated as well as conventional urodynamics. A total of 33 women and 7 men from 23 to 72 years of age who were undergoing both procedures were prospectively included in this study. Prior to and immediately after the procedures, each patient completed a self-administered questionnaire. Answers were given on a visual analogue scale. The degree of anxiety was higher for conventional urodynamics than for AUM (p = 0.045), while the degree of boredom experienced during AUM was higher than that during conventional urodynamics (p= 0.013). There was no significant difference in the degree of shame or bother experienced by the patients during the two procedures. In general, patients tolerated both examinations extremely well. The examiner-rated degree of intolerance during conventional urodynamics was influenced by the subjective pain score (p=0.001), while all other emotional variables except bother were not significantly related with the degree of intolerance during AUM (p=0.007). A total of 74.4% and 84.6% responded that they were willing to repeat conventional urodynamics and AUM, respectively, which were not significantly different. Although AUM produced a significantly higher level of boredom than conventional urodynamics, our data demonstrates that patients are as tolerant of AUM as they are of conventional urodynamic procedures.

Keyword

Urodynamics; ambulatory monitoring; detrusor instability; pain; anxiety

MeSH Terms

*Urodynamics
Urination Disorders/*diagnosis/*urine
Urinary Incontinence/diagnosis
Questionnaires
Pain Measurement
Pain
Monitoring, Ambulatory/*methods
Middle Aged
Male
Humans
Fluoroscopy/*methods
Female
Anxiety
Aged
Adult

Reference

1. Bai SW, Kang SH, Kim SK, Kim JY, Park KH. The effect of pelvic organ prolapse on lower urinary tract function. Yonsei Med J. 2003. 44:94–98.

2. Van Waalwijk van Doorn ES, Remmers A, Janknegt RA. Conventional and extramural ambulatory urodynamic testing of the lower urinary tract in female volunteers. J Urol. 1992. 147:1319–1325.

3. Webb RJ, Ramsden PD, Neal DE. Ambulatory monitoring and electronic measurement of urinary leakage in the diagnosis of detrusor instability and incontinence. Br J Urol. 1991. 68:148–152.

4. Robertson AS, Griffiths CJ, Ramsden PD, Neal DE. Bladder function in healthy volunteers: ambulatory monitoring and conventional urodynamic studies. Br J Urol. 1994. 73:242–249.

5. Heslington K, Hilton P. Ambulatory monitoring and conventional cystometry in asymptomatic female volunteers. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996. 103:434–441.

6. Van Waalwijk van Doorn E, Anders K, Khullar V, Kulseng-Hanssen S, Pesce F, Robertson A, et al. Standardisation of ambulatory urodynamic monitoring: Report of the Standardisation Sub-Committee of the International Continence Society for Ambulatory Urodynamic Studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000. 19:113–125.

7. Porru D, Madeddu G, Campus G, Montisci I, Scarpa RM, Usai E. Evaluation of morbidity of multi-channel pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 1999. 18:647–652.

8. Logadottir Y, Dahlstrand C, Fall M, Knutson T, Peeker R. Invasive urodynamic studies are well tolerated by the patients and associated with a low risk of urinary tract infection. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2001. 35:459–462.

9. Anders K, Cardozo L, Ashman O, Khullar V. Morbidity after ambulatory urodynamics. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002. 21:461–463.

10. Radley SC, Rosario DJ, Chapple CR, Farkas AG. Conventional and ambulatory urodynamic findings in women with symptoms suggestive of bladder overactivity. J Urol. 2001. 166:2253–2258.

11. Ku JH, Kim SW, Kim HH, Paick JS, Son H, Oh SJ. Patient experience with a urodynamic study: a prospective study in 208 patients. J Urol. 2004. 171:2307–2310.

12. Revill SI, Robinson JO, Rosen M, Hogg MI. The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anaesthesia. 1976. 31:1191–1198.

13. Kindler CH, Harms C, Amsler F, Ihde-Scholl T, Scheidegger D. The visual analog scale allows effective measurement of preoperative anxiety and detection of patients' anesthetic concerns. Anesth Analg. 2000. 90:706–712.

14. Badner NH, Nielson WR, Munk S, Kwiatkowska C, Gelb AW. Preoperative anxiety: detection and contributing factors. Can J Anaesth. 1990. 37(4 Pt 1):444–447.

15. Domar AD, Everett LL, Keller MG. Preoperative anxiety: is it a predictable entity? Anesth Analg. 1989. 69:763–767.

16. Grabow L, Buse R. Preoperative anxiety-anxiety about the operation, anxiety about anesthesia, anxiety about pain? Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 1990. 40:255–263.

17. Shevde K, Panagopoulos G. A survery of 800 patients' knowledge, attitudes, and concerns regarding anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1991. 73:190–198.

18. Van Wijk MG, Smalhout B. A postoperative analysis of the patient's view of anesthesia in a Netherlands' teaching hospital. Anaesthesia. 1990. 45:679–682.

19. Shafer A, Fish MP, Gregg KM, Seavello J, Kosek P. Preoperative anxiety and fear: a comparison of assessments by patients and anesthesia and surgery residents. Anesth Analg. 1996. 83:1285–1291.