Trends in urodynamic testing prior to midurethral sling placement—What was the value of the VALUE trial?. Issue 3 (6th September 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lloyd, Jessica C.; Dielubanza, Elodi; Goldman, Howard B.
• Is Part Of: Neurourology and urodynamics. Volume 37:Issue 3(2018:Mar.)
• Page Start: 1046
• Page End: 1052
• Publication Date: 2017-09-06
• Subjects: guidelines -- incontinence (female) -- synthetic midurethral sling -- urodynamics; Urinary organs -- Periodicals; Urodynamics -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.23398
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0733-2467

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Many urologists use urodynamic testing (UDS) to assist clinical decision‐making. The VALUE study, a multi‐institutional, randomized controlled trial published in 2012, demonstrated that UDS prior to midurethral sling placement for uncomplicated stress urinary incontinence (SUI) did not change management. We sought to determine whether use of UDS for evaluation of SUI diminished thereafter. Methods: Records of patients who underwent isolated mid‐urethral sling surgery at our tertiary‐care referral center from 2008 to 2009 (pre‐VALUE) and 2014 to 2016 (post‐VALUE) were reviewed. Comorbidities, presenting symptoms, surgeon specialty, use of UDS, UDS results and sling type were recorded. Patients with neurologic comorbidities or prior anti‐incontinence procedures were excluded. Descriptive statistics were calculated and multivariable logistic regression analyses performed. Results: Three hundred and eighty‐seven patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 54 years. Patients most frequently presented with stress urinary incontinence (56% pre, 50% post), followed by stress predominant mixed urinary incontinence (40% pre, 48% post, P = 0.09). Before VALUE, UDS was performed in 70% of patients prior to primary sling; in the later cohort, this decreased to 41% ( P < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, provider specialty ( P < 0.0001) and belonging to the pre‐VALUE cohort ( P = < 0.0001) predicted use of UDS prior to sling. Conclusion: It is paramount that new data be incorporated into diagnostic and treatment algorithms. We found that the rate of preoperative urodynamic testing decreased after publication of a randomized‐controlled trial demonstrating that these studies did not change procedural decision‐making. Future studies that identify instances of over‐testing may have the ability to positively impact patient care and contain costs.