Can Videourodynamics shape management in refractory pediatric lower urinary tract dysfunction?

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Bladder dysfunction, or more specifically lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD), remains a common reason for pediatric urology consultation, and the management of these patients is time consuming and frustrating for patients, families and providers alike. But what happens when the patient proves refractory to current treatment modalities? Is there a role for the use of videourodynamics (VUDS) to help guide therapy in the patient with refractory voiding dysfunction, and if so how might we select patients for this invasive study in order to increase the yield of useful information? OBJECTIVES: To determine the role, if any, for VUDS in the evaluation of pediatric patients with refractory LUTD and to identify parameters that might be used to select patients for this invasive study in order to increase the yield of useful information. STUDY DESIGN: Through our IRB-approved prospectively maintained urodynamics database, we retrospectively identified 110 patients with non-neurogenic LUTD over a period from 2015 to 2022 who underwent VUDS. We excluded patients with known neurologic or anatomic lesions and developmental delay. RESULTS: There were 76 females and 34 males (69%/31%) and their average age at the time of the study was 10.5 years ± 4 with a median age of 7.3 years. Patients had been followed for a mean of 5.9 ± 3.5 office visits prior to obtaining the VUDS and reported a mean Dysfunction Voiding and Incontinence Symptom Score (DVISS) of 15.6 ± 6.7 before the VUDS. VUDS resulted in a change in management in 86 of these 110 patients (78%). Management changes included a change in medication (53/110), consideration of CIC (11/110), PTENS (1/110) and surgery (14/110). As shown in the Figure, the DVISS score was significantly higher and the number of office visits prior to VUDS was significantly higher in the 86 patients whose management was changed versus the 24 patients in whom management did not change (P < 0.02). CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis suggests that criteria for selecting these patients include 1) long standing urinary incontinence that is refractory to biofeedback and medications, 2) ≥6 visits to LUTD clinic with no improvement, and 3) LUT symptom score of ≥16. Our findings suggest these criteria identify a cohort of patients in which a VUDS evaluation for the child with refractory LUTD can offer a more exact diagnosis that can shape management.