COMPARING THE EFFICACY OF CLINICAL HISTORY AND SIMPLE OFFICE CYSTOMETRY TO MULTICHANNEL URODYNAMICS
S. Kleeman, MD, T. Knipper, MD, S. Segal, MD, A. Silva, MD, M. Karram, MD
Objective: The objective was to compare clinical history and simple office cystometry to multichannel urodynamic testing in patients with urinary incontinence.
Materials and Methods: All patients referred for evaluation at Good Samaritan Hospital Seton Center were prospectively entered into a data base beginning in January 2001. A total of 502 patients were entered into the data base. The data base was searched for patients having both simple cystometry and multichannel urodynamic testing. A total of 123 women met this criteria and were included in the study.
Results: The following table represents the sensitivitry, specificity, positive and negative predictive value for clinical history and simple office cystometry versus urodynamic testing.
sensitivitry specificity Positive PV Negative PV
Cystometry stress 51.43 79.25 76.6 55.26
Cystometry urge 18.18 98.21 50.0 92.44
Cystometry mixed 0.0 96.61 0.0 95.8
History Stress 44.29 73.58 68.89 50.0
History urge 63.64 74.11 19.44 95.4
History Mixed 40.0 61.86 4.26 96.05
History and cystometry stress 74.29 54.72 68.42 61.7
Conclusions: Clinical history along with simple office cystometry is effective in helping to diagnosis women with urinary incontinence.
Key Words: Simple Cystometry, Urodynamics