Advertisement

Overview of the Evaluation of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction

  • Christopher R. Chapple
  • Altaf Mangera
Chapter
Part of the Springer Specialist Surgery Series book series (SPECIALIST)

Abstract

The idea “the bladder is an unreliable witness” first came into existence with the recognition that lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were not disease or gender specific, could be reported inaccurately by the patient, or could be poorly documented by the investigator.1 In recent years, attempts have been made to quantify symptoms by the use of disease-specific symptom scores and quality of life measures. Well-known examples include the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) for suspected prostate and the King’s Health Questionnaire for incontinence-related problems. Currently, internationally acceptable questionnaires are being evaluated for incontinence.2

Keywords

Lower Urinary Tract Symptom Bladder Neck Detrusor Overactivity International Prostate Symptom Score Detrusor Contraction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Chapple CR, Roehrborn CG. A shifted paradigm for the further understanding, evaluation, and treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men: focus on the bladder. Eur Urol. 2006;49(4):651-659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Griffiths D, Tadic SD. Bladder control, urgency, and urge incontinence: evidence from functional brain imaging. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27(6):466-474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Addla S, Adeyouju A, Neilson D. Assessment of reliability of 1-day, 3-day and 7-day frequency volume charts. Eur Urol Suppl. 2004;2:30Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lose G, Rosenkilde P, Gammelgaard J, Schroeder T. Pad-weighing test performed with standardized bladder volume. Urology. 1988;32:78-80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kromann-Andersen B, Jakobsen H, Andersen JT. Pad-weighing tests: a literature survey on test accuracy and reproducibility. Neurourol Urodyn. 1989;8:237-242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jorgensen L, Lose G, Thunedborg P. Diagnosis of mild stress incontinence in females: 24-hour pad weighing test versus the one-hour test. Neurourol Urodyn. 1987; 6:165-166Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilleran JP, Zimmern P. An evidence-based approach to the evaluation and management of stress incontinence in women. Curr Opin Urol. 2005;15:236-243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goode PS, Locher JL, Bryant RL, Roth DL, Burgio KL. Measurement of postvoid residual urine with portable transabdominal bladder ultrasound scanner and urethral catheterization. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2000;11:296-300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weber AM, Taylor RJ, Wei JT, Lemack G, Piedmonte MR, Walters MD. The cost-effectiveness of preoperative testing (basic office assessment vs. urodynamics) for stress urinary incontinence in women. BJU Int. 2002;89: 356-363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weidner AC, Myers ER, Visco AG, Cundiff GW, Bump RC. Which women with stress incontinence require urodynamic evaluation? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:20-27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abrams P. Urodynamics. London: Springer-Verlag; 1997Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Clinical practice guideline: urinary incontinence in adults. Rockville MDOHAHSUAFHCPAR, editor. AHCPR Pub. No. 96-0682. 1996Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Salvatore S. Overactive bladder symptoms: do we need urodynamics? Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22:105-108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Showalter PR, Zimmern PE, Roehrborn CG, Lemack GE. Standing cystourethrogram: an outcome measure after anti-incontinence procedures and cystocele repair in women. Urology. 2001;58:33-37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zimmern P, Lemack G. Voiding cystourethrography and magnetic resonance imaging of the lower urinary tract. In: Corcos I, Schick E, eds. The Urinary Sphincter. Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York; 2001:407-421Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hilton P, Stanton SL. Urethral pressure measurement by microtransducer: the results in symptom-free women and in those with genuine stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;90:919-933PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bump RC, Norton PA, Zinner NR, Yalcin I. Mixed urinary incontinence symptoms: urodynamic findings, incontinence severity, and treatment response. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:76-83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:167-178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Homma Y. The clinical significance of the urodynamic investigation in incontinence. BJU Int. 2002;90:489-497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petrou SP, Broderick GA. Valsalva leak-point pressure changes after successful and failed suburethral sling. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002;13:299-302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chapple CR, MacDiarmid SA, Patel A. Urodynamics Made Easy. 3rd ed. Edinburgh, UK: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher R. Chapple
    • 1
  • Altaf Mangera
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologySheffield Teaching HospitalsSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations