Erhan OKUYAN, Eser Şefik ÖZYÜREK, Caner ÇAKIR, Tuncay KÜÇÜKOZAN, Emre GÜNAKAN, Enis ÖZKAYA

Comparison of treatment results of urinary incontinence verified/or not verified with urodinamic evaluation by using UDI-6, IIQ-7 questionnaire forms

Aim: Treatment of mixed type incontinence includes surgical and/or medical options. The efficacy of treatment frequently dependson the patient based choice. Thus, we aimed to compare treatment efficacy with UDI-6 and IIQ-7 questionnaire forms in groups with/without urodynamics in the diagnosis of mixed type incontinence.Material and Methods: In our study, 60 patients were registered. Patients were evaluated in 2 groups including 30 patients that:agreed (Group 1) to and did not agree (Group 2) for a urodynamic exam. "Quality of life" scoring questionnaires, urodynamics records,and urethral angle measurements were performed in both groups. Patients in the groups were evaluated in subgroups whether theyreceived TOT (Transobturator tape) and/or medical treatment. Group 1; A: TOT patients, B: TOT + medical treatment, C: Only medicaltreatment; Group 2; D: TOT + medical treatment, E: Only medical treatment.Results: The mean age of the patients was 49 and 70% of patients were postmenopausal. Most of the patients were obese 45%of patients had had a BMI of >40kg/m2. The rate of TOT received the patients in Group 1 and 2 were 21 (70%) and 13 (43.3%),respectively. An analysis of questionnaire scores %94.4 of all patients stated a regression in symptoms after treatment. Both surveysshowed positive changes in all groups. The change ratio in the survey scores was 81.1% and 67.3% in Group 1 and 2 respectively inUDI- 6 survey similarly with IIQ-7 survey results as 81.1% and 63.5 % in Group 1 and 2 respectively. In the comparison of medicaltreatment subgroups (C and E) the change rate was significantly lower in patients who did not agree with urodynamic in UDI 6 andIIQ7 surveys ( 86.4% vs 55.0%, p

PDF

___

1. Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, et al. Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Review. JAMA 2017;318:1592-604.
2. Minassian VA, Yan X, Lichtenfeld MJ, et al. The iceberg of health care utilization in women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:1087-93.
3. Goranitis I, Barton P, Middleton LJ, et al. Testing and Treating Women after Unsuccessful Conservative Treatments for Overactive Bladder or Mixed Urinary Incontinence: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation Based on the BUS Study. PLoS One 2016;11:e0160351.
4. Welk B, Baverstock RJ. The management of mixed urinary incontinence in women. Can Urol Assoc J 2017;11(6Suppl2):121-4.
5. Cam C, Sakalli M, Ay P, et al. Validation of the short forms of the incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ7) and the urogenital distress inventory (UDI-6) in a Turkish population. Neurourol Urodyn 2007;26:129- 33.
6. Gomelsky A, Dmochowski RR. Treatment of mixed urinary incontinence in women. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2011;23:371-5.
7. Brubaker L, Stoddard A, Richter H, et al. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network. Mixed incontinence: comparing definitions in women having stress incontinence surgery. Neurourol Urodyn 2009;28:268- 73.
8. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, et al. Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory. Continence Program for Women Research Group. Neurourol Urodyn 1995;14:131-9.
9. Norton PA, Nager CW, Brubaker L, et al. Urinary Incontinence Treatment Network. The cost of preoperative urodynamics: A secondary analysis of the ValUE trial. Neurourol Urodyn 2016;35:81-4.
10. Hilton P, Bryant A, Howel D, et al. Assessing professional equipoise and views about a future clinical trial of invasive urodynamics before surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: a survey within a mixed methods feasibility study. Neurourol Urodyn 2012;31:1223-30.