You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Basic Research II1 Apr 2015MP12-11 URODYNAMIC INVESTIGATION: A SENSIBLE TOOL TO DEFINE NORMAL LOWER URINARY TRACT FUNCTION? Lorenz Leitner, Matthias Walter, Ulrich Mehnert, and Thomas M. Kessler Lorenz LeitnerLorenz Leitner More articles by this author , Matthias WalterMatthias Walter More articles by this author , Ulrich MehnertUlrich Mehnert More articles by this author , and Thomas M. KesslerThomas M. Kessler More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.786AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Urodynamic investigation (UDI) is the gold standard to assess refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), i.e. to detect pathological patterns of the lower urinary tract. However, it is unclear whether UDI might also be appropriate in healthy volunteers to select for comparative studies control subjects with normal lower urinary tract function. METHODS 40 healthy subjects (22 woman, mean age 32 ± 10 years; 18 men mean age 37 ±12 years) without LUTS were included into this prospective single-centre cohort study. All subjects recorded a 3-day bladder diary and completed validated urological questionnaires regarding LUTS. Medical history and neuro-urological examination were assessed. UDI was performed according to “Good Urodynamic Practice” recommended by the International Continence Society (Schafer et al 2002). Bladder outlet obstruction was defined as maximum flow rate <12mL/s and detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate >25cmH2O for women and according to the Abrams-Griffiths nomogram for men. RESULTS Medical history, neuro-urological examination 3-day bladder diary and LUTS questionnaires were inconspicuous in all subjects. UDI revealed pathological findings in 73% (29/40) of our presumably healthy subjects: Detrusor overactivity was detected in 9% (2/22) and 33% (6/18), post void residual >100mL in 14% (3/22) and 22% (4/18), bladder outlet obstruction in 9% (2/22) and 44% (8/18), and detrusor sphincter dyssynergia in 73% (16/22) and 72% (13/18) of our women and men, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Almost 3 of 4 of our healthy subjects showed pathological urodynamic findings. Although UDI is the gold standard to assess refractory LUTS, it seems not to be a sensible tool to define normal lower urinary tract function. UDI is an invasive and non-physiological examination with a relevant risk for UDI-induced pathological findings. Thus, we do not recommend to identify “healthy control subjects” based on UDI only since many candidates will be excluded due to false positive UDI-induced results. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e132 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Lorenz Leitner More articles by this author Matthias Walter More articles by this author Ulrich Mehnert More articles by this author Thomas M. Kessler More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...