Standard and extramural ambulatory urodynamic investigation for the diagnosis of XXXX -correlated @entity322 and micturition disorders.

@entity1 @entity322 @entity2915 @entity1344 @entity3142
Forty-six @entity1 were evaluated for complaints of @entity322 . Diagnostic testing included a detailed history, physical examination, urine analysis, and urodynamic studies consisting of a conventional urodynamic test (S.I.) including provocative manoeuvres and extramural ambulatory urodynamic monitoring (e.a.m.). We compared the pre-classification diagnoses obtained from the medical history with both urodynamic tests. Conventional cystometry detected @entity1344 in 8 @entity1 out of 16 with a history of urgency, while a normal detrusor behaviour was observed in the other 8. "Provocative" manoeuvres yielded an additional 13.3%. Extramural ambulatory monitoring confirmed the diagnosis in the 8 @entity1 with @entity2915 and revealed @entity1344 in a further 7. E.a.m. proved adequate in 93.7% of @entity1 with symptoms of @entity1344 . In the group of @entity1 with @entity3142 ( @entity3142 ) e.a.m. revealed @entity1344 in 18.7% of the @entity1 , but did not significantly improved the diagnostic results obtained by S.I. Coughing was the most effective stimulus to objectify @entity3142 . The comparison of the results obtained with S.I. and those obtained with home e.a.m. will probably lead to a more rational use of both methods. Our data confirm the promising impact of ambulatory urodynamic investigation.
