Correlation between urodynamic tests, history and clinical findings in treatment of women with urinary incontinence

• Autor(a) principal: Borges,João Bosco Ramos
• Data de Publicação: 2010
• Outros Autores: Guarisi,Telma, Camargo,Ana Carolina Marchesini de, Borges,Pítia Cárita de Godoy
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Einstein (São Paulo)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-45082010000400437
• topic: Urinary incontinence/diagnosis; Urodynamics; Medical history taking; Retrospective studies

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of urodynamic test in diagnosis of urinary incontinence, comparing detailed data of history and physical examination, and some easy- to-apply clinical tests. Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective study was carried out by reviewing the medical charts of 55 patients with complaint of loss of urine, seen at the Urogynecology Service of Women's Health Outpatient Clinic of Hospital Universitário de Jundiaí, between October 2006 and March 2007. The patients answered a specific questionnaire involving the epidemiological and physical examination variables considered in this study. They were submitted to physical examination and urodynamic tests. Results: The complaint of loss of urine upon exertion, either isolated or associated with urge incontinence, was confirmed by urodynamic tests in most women, and only 4 of 49 symptomatic women had negative results. The clinical sign was present in 35 patients (63.6%), and 46 patients (83.6%) had the exertion component in the urodynamic test. The exertion component was observed in 10 (18%) out of 15 patients without symptoms (30%). The positive and negative predictive values of the clinical sign for diagnosis of any type of urinary incontinence in this studied group were 97.1 and 26.7%, respectively. As for the clinical complaint of urinary loss upon exertion, the positive and negative predictive values for any type of urinary incontinence were 92 and 40%, respectively. For the clinical complaint of urge incontinence, the positive and negative predictive values of 92.5 and 23.1%, respectively. Conclusions: It was concluded that the urodynamic evaluation is an important instrument to evaluate the severity of incontinence, although it was not necessary to diagnose loss of urine. The finding of urinary loss during physical examination had low sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis of the type of loss of urine. Urodynamic tests had better performance in demonstrating urinary incontinence in patients with complaint of incontinence upon exertion and without loss of urine seen upon physical examination than in confirming urge incontinence in patients with those symptoms.