Office cystometry in a resource-constrained setting: Spectrum of diagnoses and correlation with QUID

• Main Authors: S K Bola-Oyebamiji, O O Badejoko, I O Awowole, Z F Abdur-Rahim, M Ajayi, A A Salako
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2019-01-01
• Series: Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Subjects: Cystometry; diagnosis; incontinence; urinary; urodynamics; screening.
• Online Access: http://www.tjogonline.com/article.asp?issn=0189-5117;year=2019;volume=36;issue=1;spage=117;epage=121;aulast=Bola-Oyebamiji

Background: Office cystometry is an appropriate technology alternative to urodynamics, especially in resource-poor settings. The combination of a validated screening tool such as the Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis (QUID) and office cystometry stands as the gold standard in the evaluation of urinary incontinence, where urodynamics is not available. Objectives: This study aimed to determine the spectrum of urinary incontinence diagnoses using a combination of urogynecological examination and office cystometry among women in a resource-constrained sub-Saharan African setting and to correlate this with their QUID diagnoses. Methods: Sixty consenting women who had urinary incontinence diagnosed with QUID were recruited from a related study. The cough stress test was performed to elicit stress incontinence. Standard digital and speculum examinations were performed. Postvoid residual urine volume was determined by catheterization. Simple cystometry was performed to detect detrusor overactivity. Using urogynecological examination and simple cystometry as the gold standard, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated for QUID. Results: The spectrum of diagnoses made using urogynecological examination and office cystometry included no incontinence 13 (21.7%), urge incontinence 23 (38.3%), stress incontinence 18 (30.0%), mixed incontinence 5 (8.3%), and overflow incontinence in 1 (1.7%) woman, respectively. Using this as the gold standard, QUID demonstrated sensitivity of 87.0%, 55.6%, and 60.0% for urge, stress, and mixed incontinence, respectively, with corresponding specificity of 73.0%, 81.0%, and 83.6%, respectively. Conclusion: Urogynecological examination and office cystometry identified stress, urge, mixed, and overflow urinary incontinence in the study population. Overall, good correlation existed between the QUID and office cystometric diagnoses.