Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Utilization of preoperative urodynamic studies by Canadian gynaecologists|
|Citation:||Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, 2002; 24(4):315-319|
|Publisher:||Canadian Medical Association|
|Lovatsis D, Drutz HP, Wilson D, Duggan P.|
|Abstract:||OBJECTIVES:(1) To determine the proportion of Canadian gynaecologists who have urodynamic studies (UDS) readily available; (2) to assess the preoperative UDS utilization patterns of Canadian gynaecologists in various clinical scenarios of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS:A mail survey was sent to all 1266 obstetrician/gynaecologist members of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC), as part of an international survey with the U.K., U.S.A., New Zealand, and Australia. Survey questions included geographic availability of UDS and specific types of urodynamics testing available. Utilization of urodynamics prior to anti-incontinence surgery was assessed in four clinical scenarios: (A) a history of uncomplicated primary stress urinary incontinence, (B) a history of mixed stress and urgency incontinence, (C) stress incontinence with a history of straining to void, and (D) recurrent stress incontinence. RESULTS:Of the 1266 surveys mailed, 230 (18%) were returned. Forty-four of the respondents did not manage incontinent women. Of the 186 respondents who did, 27% reported a special interest or additional postgraduate training in urogynaecology, and 73% were general gynaecologists. UDS were available in the same centre or city to 79% of respondents. For uncomplicated primary stress incontinence, 47% would always obtain preoperative UDS, 42% would not, and 11% would only if UDS were readily available. For the total group of respondents, in scenario A 47% would always obtain preoperative UDS, 42% would not, and 11% would only if UDS were readily available. Among general gynaecologists, in scenario A, if UDS were available in their city or centre of practice, 54% would always obtain preoperative UDS, as compared to 5% by general gynaecologists who did not have UDS available in their city or centre of practice. CONCLUSION:The data collected in this survey are compromised because of the low response rate. However, most (79%) of the respondents who manage women with urinary incontinence had access to urodynamics in the same centre or city. The utilization of urodynamics prior to surgical treatment of uncomplicated primary pure stress incontinence varies depending on the availability of such testing. An uncomplicated history of primary SUI and decreased availability of testing were two factors seen to have an effect of decreasing utilization of preoperative UDS. Hospital management did not always comply with SOGC guidelines for preoperative testing for SUI. Updating and dissemination of these guidelines is necessary to ensure "best" practice and highest quality of care for all women with SUI in Canada.|
|Keywords:||Humans; Urinary Incontinence, Stress; Preoperative Care; Health Care Surveys; Gynecology; Urology; Urodynamics; Health Services Accessibility; Guideline Adherence; Canada; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Surveys and Questionnaires; Practice Patterns, Physicians'|
|Appears in Collections:||Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.