Prospective validation of a novel visual analogue uroflowmetry score (VAUS) in 1000 men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)

Tiwari, Raj; Ng, M.Y.; Ho, Shb

doi:10.1016/s1569-9056(19)30652-9

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently published and emerging technologies identified by the speakers at the Think Tank (the first four and the final authors) as potentially offering less‐invasive diagnoses were oral hydration studies looking at patterns of sensation 17 ; patient‐reported visual tools 18,19 ; three‐dimensional ultrasound bladder shape analysis 20,21 ; ultrasound elastography of the bladder wall 22 ; ultrasound vibrometry 23 ; acoustic radiation force impulse imaging 24 ; mathematical modeling analysis 25 ; and pressure measurement using implanted wireless sensors, 26 organic transistor sensors 27 or bioreabsorbable sensors 28 . Whereas the first two listed, since they are patient‐reported methods, are inherently simple, the others require advanced technologies that are still under development.…”

Section: Less‐invasive Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What developments are needed to achieve less‐invasive urodynamics? ICI‐RS 2019

Gammie

Speich

Damaser

et al. 2020

Neurourology and Urodynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To assess the state of technologies for urodynamics that are less invasive than standard cystometry and pressure‐flow studies and to suggest areas needing research to improve this. Methods A summary of a Think Tank debate held at the 2019 meeting of the International Consultation on Incontinence Research Society is provided, with subsequent analysis by the authors. Less‐invasive techniques were summarized, classified by method, and possible developments considered. Discussions and recommendations were summarized by the co‐chairs and edited into the form of this paper by all authors. Results There is a full spectrum of technologies available for less‐invasive assessment, ranging from simple uroflowmetry through imaging techniques to emerging complex technologies. Less‐invasive diagnostics will not necessarily need to replace diagnosis by, or even provide the same level of diagnostic accuracy as, invasive urodynamics. Rather than aiming for a technique that is merely less invasive, the priority is to develop methods that are either as accurate as current invasive methods, or spare patients from the necessity of invasive methods by improving early triaging. Conclusions Technologies offering less‐invasive urodynamic measurement of specific elements of function can be potentially beneficial. Less‐invasive techniques may sometimes be useful as an adjunct to invasive urodynamics. The potential for current less‐invasive tests to completely replace invasive urodynamic testing is considered, however, to be low. Less‐invasive techniques must, therefore, be tested as screening/triaging tools, with the aim to spare some patients from invasive urodynamics early in the treatment pathway.

show abstract