Üriner İnkontinanslı Hastalarda Semptomlarla Ürodinami Bulgularının Karşılaştırılması

Objective: To compare the diagnosis based on the urodynamic test with the outcome of the urodynamic test results on the patients who had the complaints of urinary incontinence anamnesis and to assess the risk factors on the patiens with incontinence. Material and Method: Between December 2000 and April 2007, 206 patients having applied with the complaints of urine leaking to Minestry of Health Istanbul Education and Research Hospital Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic were classifi ed and compared to their urodynami results. Based on thesesymptoms, thenegativeandpositivepredictiveresultsof thediagnosis were found. Results: Urodynamic study was carried out on the patients having applied with the complaints of stress incontinence, urge incontinence, andmixt incontinence. There were genuine stress incontinence’s complaints on 122, urge incontinence’s complaints on 38, and mixt incontinence’s complaints on 46 of thepatients. Accordingtotherevealed urodynamic results, genuinestress incontinence on 91 patients, overactive bladder on 36 patients, and mixt incontinence on 15 patients were detected. When the patients with genuine stress incontinence were examined according to their types, 18, 50 and 23 of the91 patients diagnosedwithurodynamyhadrespectively type-1, type-2 andtype-3. Theresultsof theurodynamywere compared withsymptomatology. The diagnosis’ sensitivity put forward with symptoms 80.2 %, specifi ty 57.3 %, PPD 59.8% , NPD 78.5% for stress incontinence and for overactive bladder, the sensitivity 69.4%, specifi ty 92.3%, PPD 28.2% and NPD 98.7% were found. Conclusion: Symptoms of a patient are weak modifi ers for diagnosing on incontinence. The fi nal diagnosis must be confi rmed withurodynamyforthe patients whoseoperationhasbeen plannedor accuratediagnosis cannotbe reached by simple urogynaecologic tests .