4 Discussion
The current and main assessment methods for evaluating female LUTS include questionnaires such as ICIQ-FLUTS and OABSS and urodynamic studies. Cystoscopy, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are also used but less frequently.15 However, there are no generally accepted guidelines or recommendations regarding when any of the above should be used.16
Questionnaires are more widely used in clinical practice and clinical research studies.17 Questionnaire surveys have the advantage of being used to ascertain patients’ discomfort in a comprehensive and detailed way; but due to different levels of education, ways of expression and tolerance, the same disease in different patients is often expressed in different ways.18
The process of urine storage and voiding can be simulated through urodynamics to detect the key indicators associated with the lower urinary tract symptoms.19 Urodynamics is a more objective method without the need for self-evaluation, and it plays an essential role in the diagnosis of female LUTS and the formulation of optimal treatment plans. We have previously used UDS to clarify the etiology of LUTS.20 However, the clinical utility and effectiveness of UDS for diagnosing LUTS remain poorly defined due to the lack of high-quality evidence. Clinical decisions based on urodynamics are not based on a solid evidence base and may be affected by a subjective interpretation by the healthcare professional.21 Furthermore, UDS do not apply to all patients because it is an invasive test that requires specialized sites and equipment, skills and patient acceptance. Due to the invasive nature of UDS and the specialized setting in which it is conducted, patients usually experience tension and discomfort, which affect the results of the evaluation. There is also a possibility of false-positive and false-negative results after UDS with failure to diagnose the true extent of the LUTS.
In our study, 204 patients were assessed concurrently using symptom questionnaires and UDS. We observed that the consistency of the two assessment methods was poor. For the diagnosis of LUTS, urine storage symptoms, voiding stage symptoms, SUI and OAB, the correlation coefficients were all less than 0.4, indicating poor consistency.
In our study, 30 patients were diagnosed with OAB using OABSS, while only 8 cases were diagnosed with DO using UDS. In the study by Jiménez-Cidre MA, a total of 247 women with OAB were evaluated, of which 103 had DO.22 Mancini V et al. also showed that symptoms of OAB are common syndromes, which urodynamic tests may show to be caused by detrusor overactivity (DO) and detrusor underactivity (DU), but can also be associated with other urethro-vesical dysfunction.23 Therefore, for patients diagnosed with OAB by questionnaire survey, UDS should also be performed to ascertain the underlying etiology.
The role of UDS in SUI has been a topic of intense debate. The findings of the VaLUE and VUSIS-II randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published in 2012 appeared to suggest that UDS is not valuable for women with uncomplicated SUI.24 In our study, only 117 cases (57.4%) had a consistent diagnosis of SUI using the two assessment methods. 95 cases were diagnosed with SUI using UDS, with 11cases being severe SUI. As mentioned previously, a variety of factors interfere with UDS, which may be inconsistent with the symptoms experienced by the patients, especially when the degree of urinary incontinence is mild, and urine leakage cannot be induced in UDS by increasing abdominal pressure. The quality of UDS affects the accuracy of the results, hence, the need for skilled personnel to do this procedure.
Questionnaires and urodynamics had a moderate coincidence rate for the diagnosis of LUTS and hence, both could be used to evaluate LUTS.25 Symptom questionnaires should first be administered to patients at the initial visit. A urodynamic investigation may not be necessary if the diagnosis is reliable and the administered treatment is effective.26 For patients with complex LUTS, questionnaire administration may yield wrong diagnoses and treatments may be ineffective. In such situations, a urodynamic examination may be necessary. In our study, LUTS in cervical cancer patients following RH were complex, and the consistency between questionnaires and UDS was poor. The concurrency of the two assessments for LUTS in such patients would approximate real-life situations.
Limitations of our study: Our study participants comprised of patients with cervical cancer following RH, which may not be representative of populations commonly used in urodynamics scenarios; pelvic floor disorders such as pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence are the conditions most often used in UDS. Comparing the consistency of the two assessment methods in patients with pelvic floor disorders has more clinical significance, and the results may be different. Further studies are needed in these target populations.
This study compared the consistency of two assessment methods. Therefore, given the poor consistency and the absence of a gold standard for comparison, it is impossible to determine which assessment method is more effective in a given scenario.