{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034193548387096775, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024516129032258065, 'mean_word_length': 5.382716049382716, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ambulatory Urodynamic Findings Change Patient Outcomes

Objectives Whilst ambulatory urodynamics (aUDS) may be used as a second-stage test for patients with refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) having non-diagnostic conventional urodynamics (UDS), the evidence for their use is limited. We have assessed the diagnostic utility and consequent symptomatic outcome of aUDS in patients with refractory LUTS. Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively acquired urodynamics database was made of 84 consecutive patients (23 male) with a median age 50.5 years (range 18 to 79) having aUDS following non-diagnostic or contradictory baseline UDS over a 12-month period. Patient demographics and urodynamic and clinical diagnosis before and after aUDS were recorded. Forty-six patients (55%) had formal urinary symptom assessment recorded before and a minimum of 6 months following aUDS-related change in management. Results Eighty-two patients (98%) had a urodynamic diagnosis made following aUDS, 57(68%) of whom had detrusor overactivity (DO); the final 2 patients had no abnormalities detected on aUDS. Change in primary UDS diagnosis occurred in 66 patients (79%). Of these 66 patients, 59 (89%) also had their clinical diagnosis changed, and 55 (83%) had their management pathway changed. There was a significant improvement in urinary symptoms 6 months following aUDS. Conclusion Change in primary diagnosis following aUDS led to a significant change in treatment care pathway and resulted in significant improvement in urinary symptoms.