Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 92   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 239-243

Is urodynamic study is a necessity for evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms in postmenopausal female patients? Result of a prospective observational study

Department of Urology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Dilip Kumar Pal
Department of Urology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, 244, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 020, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_170_16

PMID: 28794589

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the causes of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in postmenopausal female patients (PMFP) and correlate their symptoms with their urodynamic study (UDS) findings. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study analyzing the clinical and UDS findings of PMFP presenting with LUTS. A detailed history including history of diabetes, neurological disease, drug history, and pelvic surgeries was taken, followed by physical examination and urodynamic assessment. Results: A total of 100 patients were classified according to their predominant symptoms into three categories: (1) voiding dysfunction (45 patients), (2) storage symptoms (30 patients), and (3) urinary incontinence (25 patients). The patients with voiding LUTS could be categorized urodynamically into three grades of bladder outlet obstruction (BOO): (a) early (37.8%) (maximal flow [Qmax] >15 mL/s and detrusor pressure at maximal flow [PdetQmax] >30 cm of water), (b) compensated (31.1%) (Qmax <15 mL/s and PdetQmax >30 cm of water), and (c) late (31.1%) (Qmax <15 mL/s and PdetQmax <30 cm of water). The patients with storage symptoms could be categorized into two with either the presence of demonstrable idiopathic detrusor contractions (53.3%) or not (46.7%). The patients with incontinence were of three types: (a) stress incontinence (44%), (b) urge incontinence (28%), and (c) mixed incontinence (28%). UDS showed no demonstrable leak in nine patients (36%) and the rest had UDS findings corroborative to their symptoms. Conclusions: Thus, the major LUTS in PMFP were BOO, storage symptoms, and incontinence. Proper evaluation of LUTS necessitates UDS and along with good physical examination can help us in reaching a correct diagnosis and plan respective treatment.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded290    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal