Skip to main content

Urodynamics

Urodynamics (UDS) is the dynamic study of the transport, storage, and evacuation of urine through the measurement of relevant physiological parameters. The primary clinical goal of urodynamic evaluation is to reproduce a patient's symptomatic complaints in a laboratory setting while collecting objective physiological data to provide a pathophysiological explanation for those symptoms.

Urodynamics is an interactive study. Urodynamics is indicated when the result could change treatment or upper-tract surveillance and the relevant physiology cannot be resolved from history, examination and noninvasive tests alone, including complex lower urinary tract dysfunction or concern for upper-tract risk. Routine testing can be omitted in clearly demonstrated index SUI, and randomized trials did not show benefit from routine testing in women with refractory OAB or urgency-predominant mixed incontinence, or in men with uncomplicated LUTS considering outlet surgery.[5][24][27][28]

Core principle. Symptoms and laboratory observations answer different questions. Low flow may reflect outlet obstruction, reduced detrusor contraction, or an unrepresentative void; pressure-flow testing helps distinguish them. Interpret a representative, technically sound study alongside symptoms, examination and anatomy.[4][6]

Normal Reference Values (Quick Lookup)​

Urodynamic "normal values" are reference ranges and not diagnostic cutoffs. Age, sex, voided volume, catheter size, position, anxiety, medications, neurologic disease, and the reason for testing all change the numbers. In one healthy-volunteer study, more than 70% of asymptomatic subjects had at least one urodynamic finding that could be labeled "pathologic," so the tracing must still be interpreted against symptoms and anatomy.[16]

Uroflowmetry and PVR​

ParameterMenWomenInterpretation
Voided volume≥150 mL is commonly advised for a representative flow. Community values fall with age: median 355.5 mL at 40–44 to 222.5 mL at 75–79 (Olmsted County); mean 329 to 193 mL across ages 50–80 (Herne)[18][25][40]No validated minimum is established[25]Ask whether the void resembles the patient's usual void. Flow rates in both sexes rise with voided volume, so read Qmax against volume.[38]
QmaxCommunity median 20.3 mL/s at age 40–44, falling to 11.5 mL/s at 75–79, with Qmax <10 mL/s in 6% and 35% of those groups (Olmsted County). Mean 22.1 to 13.7 mL/s across ages 50–80 (Herne). Over six years of follow-up in 492 men from a 25% Olmsted County subsample, median Qmax declined 2.1% per year, with faster decline at age 70 or older[18][40][41]Healthy-women meta-analysis: pooled mean 28 mL/s (95% CI 27–30)[17]In men the fall with age follows the smaller voided volume: in 514 asymptomatic men without prostatic enlargement (mean Qmax 20.7 ± 7.3 mL/s at a mean 291 mL), volume-corrected Qmax did not differ by age. In Haylen’s 249 female volunteers, flow rate did not vary significantly with age. The Liverpool nomograms give centiles by voided volume for both sexes. Even flow above 15 mL/s does not rule out obstruction.[26][38][42]
PVRCommunity median 9.5 mL (25th–75th percentile 2.5–35.4 mL, Olmsted County); mean about 20–30 mL at every age from 50 to 80 (Herne). Healthy adults aged 36–89: 90th percentile 73.2 mL (25% of bladder volume), 95th percentile 102.6 mL (30%)[39][40][43]Healthy-women pooled mean 12 mL (95% CI 4–20). Healthy adults aged 36–89: 90th percentile 60.5 mL (21% of bladder volume), 95th percentile 93.8 mL (27%)[17][43]PVR did not rise with age in healthy men or women. There is no consensus cutoff for significant PVR in women. The AUA non-neurogenic chronic urinary retention white paper defines this condition in adults as PVR >300 mL persisting for at least 6 months and documented on at least two occasions; it recommends renal ultrasound during evaluation.[68] In Olmsted County men, PVR >50 mL at baseline carried about three times the likelihood of later acute retention with catheterization over 3–4 years. Repeat an elevated measurement. Voiding efficiency = VV / (VV + PVR) × 100%.[17][25][39][43][44]

Filling Cystometry: Measured Healthy-Volunteer Examples​

These are cohort means ± SD, not diagnostic limits. Leitner et al. studied 42 asymptomatic volunteers (20 men, 22 women); the values below are from their first seated investigation using a 7 Fr air-charged catheter and 30 mL/min filling.[16]

MeasurementMenWomen
First sensation of filling130 ± 85 mL75 ± 75 mL
First desire to void215 ± 105 mL235 ± 110 mL
Strong desire to void435 ± 140 mL465 ± 155 mL
Maximum cystometric capacity500 ± 165 mL560 ± 185 mL
Pdet at Qmax51 ± 16 cm H₂O29 ± 11 cm H₂O
Storage assessmentPractical interpretation
ComplianceΔvolume / ΔPdet, excluding contractions and artifacts. There is no single universally applicable normal cutoff; assess sustained detrusor pressure, capacity and the clinical risk profile.[19]
Detrusor overactivityAn involuntary detrusor contraction during filling may be phasic or terminal, with or without urgency or leakage. DO is a urodynamic observation; OAB is a clinical syndrome.[4][6]
Upper-tract riskHigh storage pressures, impaired compliance, reflux and the underlying neurological disorder matter together.[3][7]

Pressure-Flow Indices​

IndexInterpretationLimits
Male BOOIPdet@Qmax − 2(Qmax); >40 obstructed, 20–40 equivocal, <20 unobstructedThese male thresholds should not be applied to women. Female-specific methods exist, but there is no universally accepted female diagnostic threshold.[21][23][25]
Solomon–Greenwell female BOOI (BOOIf)Pdet@Qmax − 2.2(Qmax); derived and validated on videourodynamics against radiographic evidence of obstruction in 535 women (development plus validation cohorts)BOOIf <0 corresponds to <10% probability of obstruction, >5 to about 50%, and >18 to >90%; a Pdet@Qmax = 2(Qmax) diagnostic line, distinct from the BOOIf formula, gave 94% sensitivity and 93% specificity in the 350-woman validation cohort. This is one validated nomogram, not an ICS-adopted universal female threshold.[46]
Blaivas–Groutz female nomogramPlots free-uroflow Qmax against maximum voiding detrusor pressure (pdet.max) into four zones: no, mild, moderate and severe obstruction. Derived from 50 women with obstruction by strict diagnostic criteria (8.3% of a 600-woman urodynamic database) and 50 age-matched unobstructed controlsOf the 50 obstructed women, the nomogram placed 68% in the mild, 24% in the moderate and 8% in the severe zone. Symptom score (AUA Symptom Index) correlated with zone. It uses free-flow rather than pressure-flow Qmax, and the reference standard was the authors' own obstruction criteria.[64]
BCI / ICS detrusor contraction indexPdet@Qmax + 5(Qmax); traditional categories used in men: >150 strong, 100–150 normal, <100 weakThe 2023 ICS standard calls this the detrusor contraction index.[20][23]

Quality-Control Pressures​

PositionPves / Pabd baselinePdet baselineMeaning
Supine5–20 cm H₂O−5 to +5 cm H₂OCough should produce similar synchronous rises in Pves and Pabd, leaving Pdet approximately unchanged.[2]
Sitting15–40 cm H₂O−5 to +5 cm H₂OPves and Pabd should rise together with abdominal events; Pdet should not drift.
Standing30–50 cm H₂O−5 to +5 cm H₂OA non-zeroed, drifting, or dampened channel can fabricate pathology.

Read the tracing before classifying it: check pressure transmission, identify artifacts, confirm symptom reproduction, then assess storage, outlet resistance and emptying together.

Components of Urodynamic Testing​

The ICS standard urodynamic protocol comprises clinical history with symptom scores, physical examination, 3-day voiding diary, uroflowmetry with post-void residual (PVR), and cystometry with pressure-flow study.[2]

1. Uroflowmetry (Non-invasive)​

A non-invasive measurement of urine flow rate over time during spontaneous voiding.

  • Normal pattern: Smooth, bell-shaped arc with rapid rise to peak and symmetric descent
  • Plateau or prolonged low flow: May suggest outlet resistance
  • Intermittent flow: May reflect abdominal straining, intermittent outlet relaxation, reduced contraction or test inhibition

Illustrative free-flow curvesOriginal schematic · v2026-09-11 · Clinical review pending

A smooth bell-shaped example reaches about 25 mL/s; a lower plateau reaches about 8 mL/s and lasts longer. Both are invented shapes. Low flow is nonspecific and cannot distinguish obstruction from weak detrusor contraction alone. The 15 mL/s line is a reference, not a diagnostic cutoff; voided volume and context matter. (Original WARWIKI schematic; see the figure source record and review limits.)

Limitation. Cannot distinguish between bladder outlet obstruction and detrusor underactivity; both produce low flow. Invasive pressure studies are required for differentiation.

Combined with PVR (by ultrasound or catheterization), uroflowmetry screens for voiding dysfunction and guides the need for further testing.

Penile cuff test. A pneumatic cuff interrupts flow in men with LUTS; the maximum cuff-interruption pressure combined with Qmax is read against a nomogram to estimate the probability of obstruction. A 2017 systematic review found that the penile cuff test subgroup (7 studies, 546 men) had median sensitivity 88.9% and specificity 70.2% against pressure-flow studies, with wide ranges and heterogeneous thresholds and obstruction definitions; the review described overall evidence quality as typically moderate. This is an investigational screening adjunct.[47]

2. Cystometry​

Graphic depiction of bladder and abdominal pressure relative to infused volume during filling, storage, and voiding. The multichannel cystometrogram uses:

  • Pves. Intravesical pressure (from bladder catheter)
  • Pabd. Intra-abdominal pressure (from rectal or vaginal catheter)
  • Pdet. Detrusor pressure (calculated: Pves − Pabd)

Zeroing and reference: For external, fluid-filled systems, zero to atmospheric pressure with the transducers at the pubic symphysis. Follow the system-specific setup for other catheter technologies.[2][4]

Normal baseline pressures by position:

PositionPves / Pabd (cm H₂O)Pdet (cm H₂O)
Supine5–20−5 to +5
Sitting15–40−5 to +5
Standing30–50−5 to +5

Filling phase assessments:

  • Sensation: First Sensation of Filling (FSF), First Desire to Void (FDV), Strong Desire to Void (SDV)
  • Compliance: ΔVolume ÷ ΔPdet (normal: large volume change with minimal pressure rise)
  • Detrusor overactivity: Involuntary phasic or terminal contractions during filling
  • Cystometric capacity: Bladder volume at the end of filling; record why filling stopped. Reconcile infused volume, leakage, diuresis, voided volume and PVR.

Baseline PVR before filling. Draining a measured baseline residual before starting cystometry is routine, but it can be withheld by design in a selected patient when the clinical question is whether current emptying leaves the bladder at unsafe storage pressure, such as NLUTD without regular self-catheterization or hydronephrosis possibly related to high bladder pressure. Removing the residual, or filling too fast, can itself change the observed compliance, DO and capacity. When residual is intentionally retained, measure it separately by ultrasound and state what was done; contrast filling may still require partial drainage if residual urine would dilute the contrast.[48]

Illustrative filling cystometrogramOriginal schematic · v2026-09-11 · Clinical review pending

Pdet is Pves minus Pabd. The example cough raises vesical and abdominal pressures together; a later phasic detrusor rise is not matched by abdominal pressure. FSF, FDV and SDV mark reported filling sensations. All curves and milestone volumes are invented teaching examples, not patient observations or normal-reference thresholds. Measurement artifacts must be excluded clinically. (Original WARWIKI schematic; see the figure source record and review limits.)

3. Pressure-Flow Study (Voiding Phase)​

Simultaneous measurement of detrusor pressure and flow rate during voiding.

Parameters:

  • Qmax. Maximum flow rate; interpret with voided volume and detrusor pressure
  • Pdet at Qmax. Detrusor pressure at the moment of maximum flow
  • Opening detrusor pressure. Pdet when flow begins; check pressure–flow synchronization
  • Delay before flow. Record the time from permission to void to flow onset and whether the patient experienced inhibition

Confirm a genuine void before classifying outlet resistance. After terminal detrusor overactivity or leakage, a patient may be voluntarily holding the sphincter closed to prevent further loss; this can produce high-pressure, low-flow conditions in which the sphincter, not a fixed anatomical outlet, is the limiting structure. Wait for the contraction to settle when possible, or give an unambiguous instruction to void and interpret the pressure only afterward. If pressure remains high after a clear, unambiguous void, retain uncertainty about the source of resistance rather than calculating BOOI from a trace obtained during voluntary holding.[48]

Nomograms for obstruction grading in men:

  • Abrams-Griffiths nomogram: Classifies as obstructed, equivocal, or unobstructed based on Pdet@Qmax versus Qmax. In the 1979 report on 117 men over 55, maximum flow alone classified about half, Qmax with Pdet@Qmax about two-thirds, and the remaining third needed a plot of detrusor pressure against flow throughout voiding; combining the two values into a single urethral resistance factor did not help.[65]
  • ICS bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI): BOOI = Pdet@Qmax − 2(Qmax); >40 = obstructed; 20–40 = equivocal; <20 = unobstructed in men. The Schäfer nomogram is a separate obstruction-grading system.[21]
  • Bladder contractility index (BCI): BCI = Pdet@Qmax + 5(Qmax); assesses detrusor contractile strength

Male pressure-flow classificationOriginal schematic · v2026-09-11 · Clinical review pending

The male ICS / Abrams-Griffiths pressure-flow nomogram plots detrusor pressure at maximum flow (Pdet@Qmax) against maximum flow rate (Qmax). BOOI = Pdet@Qmax − 2 × Qmax: above 40 is obstructed, 20–40 inclusive is equivocal, and below 20 is unobstructed. These thresholds are not a female BOO classification, and low pressure with low flow does not by itself establish detrusor underactivity. Dots are hypothetical examples, not study observations. (Original WARWIKI schematic; source: ICS adult male terminology, section 5.12.)[21]

4. Videourodynamics (VUDS)​

Combines multichannel pressure-flow studies with simultaneous fluoroscopic imaging of the bladder and urethra.

Additional information provided:

  • Anatomical localization of bladder outlet obstruction (bladder neck versus sphincter level versus urethra)
  • Visualization of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) during filling
  • Morphology of the bladder (trabeculation, diverticula)
  • Urethral anatomy during voiding

Indications for VUDS over standard UDS:

  • Neurological lower urinary tract dysfunction requiring invasive testing: VUDS combines pressure testing with imaging to show anatomy, reflux or outlet localization. EAU 2026 strongly recommends VUDS for neurological patients; if VUDS is unavailable, use filling cystometry followed by a pressure-flow study.[71]
  • Complex posterior urethral pathology
  • Evaluation after failed surgery
  • Suspected vesicoureteral reflux

High-grade VUR can mask poor bladder compliance. When reflux is severe, the refluxing upper tract can act as a second reservoir during filling, so a routine cystometrogram measures the combined bladder-plus-upper-tract system and can under-read true bladder wall stiffness. In a pediatric cohort of 18 children with high-grade VUR studied with and without ureteral balloon occlusion, mean compliance fell 33% with occlusion (initial and terminal compliance, both p < 0.005) and median cystometric capacity fell 16%. Ureteral occlusion during urodynamics, usually done under anesthesia, is a selected technique for this specific question.[49]

5. Urethral Function Tests​

Urethral pressure profile (UPP) and Valsalva or cough leak point pressure (VLPP/CLPP):

  • Assess outlet resistance and sphincteric competence
  • Demonstrate considerable test-retest variation and overlap between normal and pathological measurements
  • VLPP correlates weakly with incontinence severity and does not reliably predict surgical outcomes
  • No reliable cutoff predicts continence surgery failure[1]
  • In 125 women with stress incontinence, the abdominal pressure required to cause leakage was unrelated to maximum urethral pressure, so maximum urethral pressure says little about urethral resistance to abdominal pressure[66]

Clinical utility: Limited as standalone tests; most useful in context of full multichannel study.

6. Electromyography (EMG)​

Measures neuromuscular activity of pelvic floor musculature and urethral sphincter during filling and voiding.

Role: Support assessment of outlet coordination, including suspected detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia (DSD) in an appropriate neurological setting. Surface patches are commonly used but record a broader pelvic-floor signal and are susceptible to movement, straining and contact artifacts.[4][16]

Surface (kinesiologic) EMG during voiding and concentric-needle EMG answer different questions. Needle EMG samples motor-unit activity to assess denervation or reinnervation and is a specialist investigation reserved for selected patients with suspected sacral-root, pudendal or other peripheral motor lesions after a neurological history and examination; its predictive value for treatment outcome after an isolated vaginal delivery or in otherwise undefined idiopathic incontinence is not established, so routine use for those indications is not supported.[50]

Pediatric Urodynamics​

Technique, comfort and interpretation each need pediatric-specific adjustment beyond simply scaling adult protocols.

  • Filling rate. A long-standing pediatric recommendation caps the fill rate at no more than 10% of predicted bladder capacity per minute, a threshold more recent UMPIRE-group publications continue to support.[57][58]
  • Comfort and preparation. In a study of 139 pediatric urodynamic tests, the median pain score was 2/10 and 41% reported moderate-or-worse pain (score ≥4/10); high pretest anxiety, lower-extremity sensory-motor alteration, and difficulty with catheterization independently predicted higher pain scores.[59] A separate study identified catheter placement as the most anxiety-provoking part of testing. Experienced staff, caregiver presence and distraction (a screen or interactive device) are reasonable measures. When catheter placement is exceptionally difficult, placing the catheter under general anesthesia and performing the study once the child is awake is a selected practical option.[59][60]
  • Repeat filling cycles. In a study of 80 children with myelodysplasia who underwent three same-session filling cycles, maximum cystometric capacity, compliance and postvoid residual were comparable across runs, and detrusor overactivity was present in all three cycles in 85%. Maximum detrusor pressure and detrusor leak-point pressure were highest on the first fill and fell on later fills. The authors favored interpreting the first, generally more adverse, result to protect the upper tract, while noting that repeated cycles lengthen testing and may increase anxiety; there is no validated rule for selecting or combining cycles.[61]

The "9 Cs" Framework for UDS Interpretation​

A systematic approach to reviewing a urodynamic study:

CParameterWhat You're Assessing
ContractionsDetrusor overactivityInvoluntary phasic or terminal detrusor contractions during filling
ComplianceBladder wall viscoelasticityΔV/ΔPdet; interpret sustained detrusor pressure with capacity and neurological/upper-tract risk
ContinenceSphincteric competenceLeak with cough/Valsalva in absence of detrusor contraction = SUI
CapacityCystometric capacityVolume at end of filling and reason for stopping; pain, urgency, leakage and compliance may contribute
SensationSensory thresholdsFSF, FDV, SDV and their relationship to usual symptoms
ContractilityDetrusor strengthContraction pressure, duration, flow and emptying
CoordinationDSD assessmentInterpret EMG with flow, pressure, neurological context and artifacts
Complete EmptyingPost-void residualElevated PVR after voiding = incomplete emptying
Clinical ObstructionBOO gradingBOOI, Abrams-Griffiths, Schäfer nomogram

Classic Urodynamic Signatures​

Bladder Outlet Obstruction (BOO)​

Hallmark: High Pdet in the presence of low Qmax.

  • BOOI >40 = obstructed; 20–40 = equivocal (men)
  • May also see high bladder capacity, detrusor overactivity (secondary to obstruction), reduced compliance
  • Etiology may be clarified by examination, endoscopy and/or VUDS: benign prostatic enlargement (most common in older men), urethral stricture, bladder neck contracture, dysfunctional voiding
  • BOO in females: less common; urethral stenosis, prior anti-incontinence surgery, or pelvic organ prolapse

Detrusor Overactivity (DO)​

Involuntary phasic or terminal detrusor contractions during filling, with or without associated urgency or incontinence.

  • Idiopathic DO: No identified neurological cause
  • Neurogenic DO (NDO): Associated with known neurological condition (suprasacral spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, stroke)

NDO in spinal cord injury is associated with significant upper tract risk when high-amplitude contractions, DSD and reduced compliance coexist.

Low Bladder Compliance​

A sustained rise in Pdet relative to added volume, after excluding detrusor contractions, rectal artifacts and technical problems.

Where the 40 cm H₂O reference comes from. McGuire et al. followed 42 patients with myelodysplasia. Of 22 whose intravesical pressure at leakage exceeded 40 cm H₂O, 15 had reflux and 18 had ureteral dilatation; among 20 at or below 40, none had reflux and two had dilatation.[3]

A procedure that raises outlet resistance, such as an artificial urinary sphincter or a sling, can unmask previously silent poor compliance once the bladder can no longer decompress by leaking. This warrants preoperative storage assessment and postoperative upper-tract surveillance in NLUTD patients with borderline storage pressures before added outlet resistance; AUA/SUFU advises repeat UDS when impaired storage parameters put the upper tracts at risk.[3][72]

Detrusor Underactivity (DUA)​

A detrusor contraction of reduced strength or duration, resulting in prolonged voiding, incomplete emptying, or inability to void.

  • Low-pressure, low-flow voiding may reflect reduced contraction or situational inhibition. BOO and reduced contraction can coexist
  • Clinically important before offering surgical outlet reduction procedures in men
  • Bladder diverticulum as a pressure sink. During a detrusor contraction, urine can flow into a low-pressure diverticulum, lowering measured bladder pressure and making contractility appear weaker than it is; an elevated postvoid residual may likewise include urine sequestered in the diverticulum rather than reflecting true underactivity or obstruction. In a comparison of men with large bladder diverticula against men with BPH without a diverticulum, carefully measured contractility was not significantly different between groups.[62][63]

Detrusor-External Sphincter Dyssynergia (DSD)​

Involuntary contraction of the external urethral sphincter coinciding with a detrusor contraction during voiding. Characteristic of suprasacral spinal cord lesions.

Consequences:

  • Functional outlet obstruction that produces high voiding pressures
  • Upper tract risk (hydronephrosis, VUR, renal failure)
  • Autonomic dysreflexia in cervical or high thoracic injuries

Assess with pressure-flow findings, sphincter activity and, where useful, fluoroscopic outlet behavior. Exclude surface-EMG artifacts and distinguish neurogenic DSD from non-neurogenic dysfunctional voiding.

The videourodynamic diagnosis of DSD itself has limited reproducibility: in a rating study of fluoroscopic VUDS tracings from patients with known neurogenic bladder, agreement between the two expert neurourologists was 82.1% but kappa was only 0.26, and sensitivity and specificity across rater pairs ranged from 28–75% and 64–93%.[51]

Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI)​

Involuntary leakage of urine during filling cystometry associated with increased abdominal pressure (cough, Valsalva, heel drop) in the absence of a detrusor contraction.

On the tracing: Pves and Pabd rise simultaneously, Pdet is unchanged, and leakage occurs via the urethra.

Document the provocation and whether a detrusor contraction accompanies leakage. UDS can help when the mechanism is uncertain, but is not routinely required when uncomplicated SUI is clearly demonstrated clinically.

Fowler's Syndrome​

A syndrome of otherwise unexplained, often painless urinary retention in women, associated with abnormal urethral sphincter needle-EMG findings. Fowler's original studies described complex repetitive discharges and decelerating bursts. Specialist evaluation must exclude anatomical, medication-related and neurological causes. Sacral neuromodulation is an option for selected refractory functional retention.[30][31]

In one series of women investigated for unexplained retention, both patterns were found in 33 of 57 (58%)[30]; in a separate study of healthy, asymptomatic volunteers restricted to the early-follicular or luteal phase, the same activity was present in 53% (8 of 15) at one or both phases of the menstrual cycle.[52]

Technical Standards and Quality Control​

Per ICS Good Urodynamic Practices 2016–2018:[2][4]

  • Liquid-filled catheters connected to pressure transducers positioned at the level of the pubic symphysis with atmospheric pressure as zero reference
  • Quality of recording must be monitored throughout the study, not just reviewed at the end
  • Provocations (cough tests, positional changes, running water) should reproduce the patient's specific symptoms
  • Artifacts must be identified and not allowed to confound interpretation: rectal contractions (false Pdet drops), catheter movement artifacts ("knock" artifacts), signal dampening
  • Equipment must be calibrated per manufacturer specifications

In an ICS-standards audit of two large UK multicenter studies of male LUTS, 7 of 25 responding UPSTREAM departments (28%) reported no calibration checks; among 110 UPSTREAM urodynamic traces, reference zero was not set to atmospheric pressure in 30 (27%), and bladder outlet obstruction was misdiagnosed locally in 6 (5.5%).[53]

Troubleshooting an unequal cough test, a flat or drifting channel, or a suspiciously nonphysiologic spike: verify zero and transducer height; check taps, connections, leaks, kinks or external compression; flush fluid-filled lines and reassess catheter position. If transmission is still poor with an empty bladder at the start of the study, instilling a small volume (about 50 mL) and repeating the cough test can help before assuming catheter malfunction. Nearly identical Pves and Pabd traces should prompt confirmation that the two catheters truly sit in separate compartments. A pressure spike coinciding with a line flush or an air-charge cycle is a recording artifact, not a patient maximum, and should be marked and excluded rather than used to select Qmax or Pdet.[54]

Reporting: Identify flow onset, Qmax and its simultaneous Pdet on synchronized traces. The 2023 ICS pressure-flow standards refine analysis and reporting of outlet resistance, contraction and voiding efficiency.[22][23]

IUGA reporting proforma. The IUGA writing group proposes a standardized report for female urodynamics that states the clinical question the study should answer and correlates it with the symptoms, examination and a bladder diary (ideally at least 3 days). The report records technique: patient position, fluid type, temperature and filling rate, catheter type and size, site of abdominal pressure measurement, whether the bladder was empty at the start, and how PVR was measured. It grades the quality of zeroing and subtraction as perfect, suboptimal for part of the test, or suboptimal throughout, and documents artifacts. Provocative maneuvers are recorded with the volume and position, and with prolapse reduced and unreduced when prolapse is present. The interpretation states whether the symptoms were reproduced, whether the question was answered, whether a urodynamic diagnosis was made using IUGA/ICS standardized diagnoses, and whether the result changed management. This is a proposed proforma based on working-group consensus.[36]

Clinical Indications and Guidelines​

When UDS Should NOT Be Routinely Performed​

Uncomplicated stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women:

The VALUE trial (630 women) found office evaluation non-inferior to office evaluation plus UDS for one-year surgical outcomes in uncomplicated, demonstrable SUI. AUA/SUFU allows omission in the index patient, which can include stress-predominant mixed incontinence when SUI is clearly demonstrated; mixed symptoms alone do not invariably mandate testing.[5][24]

OAB initial evaluation. AUA/SUFU advises against routine UDS initially. Testing can be useful when diagnostic uncertainty or inadequate response raises a question that will change management; a normal tracing does not rule out OAB.[6]

Low-risk NLUTD initial evaluation. Routine UDS is not advised after appropriate risk classification . Patients who are not classified as low risk after history, examination, PVR and urinalysis are unknown-risk and need multichannel UDS plus upper-tract assessment (Statement 6). The guideline notes that SCI, spina bifida, transverse myelitis and MS (in men) can present with widely variable findings, so the diagnosis alone does not settle risk.[7]

When UDS Can Add Value​

ScenarioDecision to resolve
SUI with coexisting storage symptoms, unclear incontinence type, significant emptying symptoms, recurrent SUI, or complex prolapseWhether UDS would change treatment selection or counseling; EAU 2026 weakly recommends preoperative UDS for SUI with added storage symptoms, unclear type, suspected voiding dysfunction, associated prolapse, or prior SUI surgery. AUA/SUFU 2023 conditionally permits omission in clearly demonstrated index SUI, including stress-predominant mixed symptoms.[8][24][25][31]
Selected men considering outlet surgeryIs obstruction present, is contraction reduced, and was non-invasive assessment sufficient? Routine testing of every man is not supported.[27]
Unknown-risk NLUTDEstablish storage/voiding risk alongside renal function and upper-tract assessment.[7]
Established moderate/high-risk NLUTDRepeat testing for relevant clinical change or to assess treatment and risk; timing depends on the risk profile.[7]
Refractory symptoms or major reconstructive decisionsResolve diagnostic uncertainty, quantify unsafe storage or evaluate emptying when the result can change an invasive treatment plan.[6][25]

Evidence on UDS and Outcomes​

High-Impact Randomized Evidence​

StudyPopulation and findingClinical meaning
VALUE (2012)630 women with uncomplicated demonstrable SUI. At 12 months, composite success (at least a 70% reduction in Urogenital Distress Inventory score and a “much better” or “very much better” Patient Global Impression of Improvement response) was 76.9% with UDS vs 77.2% with office evaluation alone; the trial met its non-inferiority criterion.[5]Routine preoperative UDS can be omitted in this selected setting.
FUTURE (2025)1,099 women with refractory OAB or urgency-predominant mixed incontinence being considered for invasive treatment. At final follow-up (15 or 24 months after randomization), patient-reported success among participants with outcome data was 117/496 (23.6%) after UDS plus comprehensive clinical assessment vs 114/503 (22.7%) after clinical assessment alone; adjusted OR 1.12 (95% CI 0.73–1.74).[28]The superiority trial did not demonstrate added benefit from routine UDS.
UPSTREAM five-year follow-up (2025)From 820 randomized men with bothersome LUTS considering further treatment, IPSS difference was 0.41 points (95% CI −1.10 to 1.93), with no detected difference in surgery (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71–1.28). Questionnaires were returned by only about half of each arm; routine data were available for 801/820.[27][29]The results do not support adding UDS routinely for every man. Five-year non-inferiority was not established because of uncertainty around the symptom estimate; selective testing remains appropriate.

The earlier 2020 meta-analysis of seven female-incontinence RCTs (1,149 participants) and the 2013 Cochrane review also found no clear improvement in continence outcomes from routine UDS.[9][10]

Impact on Physician Confidence​

Despite limited outcome improvement in uncomplicated cases, UDS influences clinical thinking. In a prospective tertiary referral study (n=102), UDS resulted in a management change in 78% of patients, with mean physician confidence increasing from 2.9 to 4.1 (on a 0–5 scale).[11]

Predictive Value​

Preoperative DO or voiding abnormalities can inform counseling, but their predictive performance is inconsistent.[8][25]

In a secondary analysis of the SISTEr trial (655 women randomized to Burch colposuspension or pubovaginal sling), 57 developed voiding dysfunction, defined as catheter use beyond 6 weeks or surgical takedown; all 19 takedowns followed a sling. No preoperative urodynamic parameter (PVR, free or pressure-flow Qmax, or vesical, abdominal or detrusor pressure at Qmax) was associated with voiding dysfunction. The trial excluded women with PVR above 150 mL or free Qmax below 12 mL/s unless advanced prolapse was present, and the authors noted that these exclusions may limit the finding.[67]

Complications and Tolerability​

Catheterization can cause discomfort, dysuria, bacteriuria, symptomatic infection or retention. Incidence depends on the population and outcome definition. In the older 119-patient study, the 4.8% retention figure applied to the 63 men, not all participants; all affected men had significant BOO. The 154-patient questionnaire study found average pain 2.27/10 and embarrassment 2.59/10, with most willing to repeat testing.[12][13]

Infection prevention: Screen for suspected symptomatic UTI and defer elective testing when present. The 2012 Cochrane review (nine trials, 973 participants) found reduced bacteriuria but uncertain symptomatic-UTI benefit (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52–1.03). EAU recommends no antibiotic prophylaxis for UDS; the SUFU 2017 policy instead recommends prophylaxis for defined risk groups, including known relevant NLUTD, elevated PVR, immunosuppression, age >70, asymptomatic bacteriuria, an indwelling catheter, an external urinary collection device, or intermittent catheterization.[32][33] A history of recurrent UTI alone was not an indication under that SUFU policy. The AUGS 2025 consensus statement (Q7), which draws on the SUFU policy rather than independent trial data, likewise advises prophylaxis for women with asymptomatic bacteriuria and neurogenic bladder dysfunction undergoing UDS, whatever the cause of the neurogenic dysfunction; outside urodynamic testing, ASB in neurogenic bladder does not need antibiotics. The AUA best practice statement (2020) advises no prophylaxis for urodynamics in healthy adults without infection or a urologic infection risk. It advises a single dose (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is named; first- or second-generation cephalosporin, amoxicillin-clavulanate or an aminoglycoside are alternatives) for NLUTD, immunosuppression, a known or suspected urinary tract abnormality with recent instrumentation, or recent antimicrobial use.[37] Apply the relevant local protocol with these guideline differences in view.[14][32][33][35]

Autonomic dysreflexia: Continuously monitor hemodynamics in NLUTD patients at risk during UDS, with treatment medication available. If dysreflexia occurs, stop the study and drain the bladder; check blood pressure at least every five minutes until baseline, and initiate pharmacological management and/or escalate care if it persists.[7]

Catheterization with an AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter. The 2015 consensus (Grade D) advises deactivating the device in the open position before transurethral catheter placement, using the smallest suitable catheter and removing it promptly.[69]

Catheterization when a stricture or prior urethroplasty is known or suspected. Review the prior anatomy and repair before passing a UDS catheter. Use a small-caliber catheter with generous lubricant, advanced gently; do not force lubricant or the catheter against resistance. For a near-obliterative stricture, assess the need for elective transurethral UDS before catheter passage, especially during urethral rest before urethroplasty, because even a small instrument may disrupt surgical staging; if passage is necessary, use endoscopic or fluoroscopic vision and a guidewire as needed.[55][70] If passage fails or meets substantial resistance, stop and characterize the stricture with retrograde or voiding urethrography before reattempting access. Forceful instrumentation after urethroplasty risks bleeding, a false passage or graft injury, with downstream risk of recurrence or infection.[55]

Reading an unexpected PVR, and a caution specific to the artificial urinary sphincter. Measure PVR promptly after voiding, since rapid post-hydration diuresis or return of refluxed urine can raise the apparent residual after an otherwise complete void, and confirm an unexpected finding with imaging that identifies the anatomy rather than treating the number in isolation. In a patient with an AUS, identify the device's fluid reservoir on imaging before considering needle aspiration of a presumed pelvic fluid collection; needle aspiration of an AUS reservoir mistaken for a cyst has been reported to render the device nonfunctional.[56]

Ambulatory Urodynamic Monitoring (AUM)​

AUM uses physiological anterograde filling (natural diuresis) and longer observation periods compared to traditional retrograde-fill laboratory UDS.[15]

Indications: Unexplained urinary symptoms with non-diagnostic standard UDS; suspected DO not captured in brief laboratory study.

Limitations: Retrograde calibration more difficult; longer duration; requires patient cooperation.

Telemetric AUM (TAUM): Wireless systems differ in the signals they record. The FDA-cleared Glean system records bladder pressure during natural filling; its April 2026 abdominal-sensor addition permits multichannel pressure recording and calculation of detrusor pressure. The FDA-cleared indication is for adults in a clinic; uroflow volume is not continuous intravesical volume measurement.[34] See the Glean device hub for current hardware and evidence limitations.[34]

Summary of Guideline Recommendations​

SettingPractical recommendation
Clearly demonstrated index SUIRoutine preoperative UDS may be omitted; assess non-index features individually.[24]
Initial uncomplicated OABDo not perform routine UDS.[6]
Refractory OABFUTURE does not support testing everyone before invasive treatment; retain testing for a specific decision or diagnostic uncertainty.[6][28]
Male LUTSUse selectively when the result can change management, rather than routinely before all outlet surgery. EAU 2026 weakly recommends urodynamics only in individual men for specific indications before invasive treatment or when further evaluation of the underlying pathophysiology of LUTS is warranted; listed indications include: prior unsuccessful invasive treatment, inability to void more than 150 mL, bothersome predominantly voiding LUTS with Qmax above 10 mL/s, and predominantly voiding LUTS at age over 80 or under 50. With Qmax below 10 mL/s EAU considers obstruction likely and urodynamics not necessarily needed, though the cutoff is a weak discriminator on its own: among men with paired uroflowmetry and pressure-flow data in the ICS-'BPH' study (1,271 recruited), a free-flow Qmax below 10 mL/s had 70% specificity, a 70% positive predictive value and only 47% sensitivity for a pressure-flow diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction.[45] In exploratory UPSTREAM analyses cited by EAU, surgery helped more in men with IPSS above 16, age under 74, Qmax below 9.8 mL/s, BOOI above 47.6 and BCI above 123.[26][73]
NLUTDAUA/SUFU recommends multichannel UDS at initial unknown-risk assessment and no routine initial UDS in low-risk patients . In high-risk patients with stable urinary symptoms, multichannel UDS may be repeated when clinically indicated .[7]
Technical performanceApply ICS good-practice recommendations and the 2023 pressure-flow standards.[4][22][23]

Podcasts​

Clinical Decision-Making in Urodynamics: From Stress Incontinence to Neurogenic Bladders
BackTable Urology, Ep. 299 (2026) · Howard Goldman, David Ginsberg
backtable.com

References​

1. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 155: Urinary Incontinence in Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):e66–e81. [doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001148]

2. Drake MJ, Doumouchtsis SK, Hashim H, Gammie A. "Fundamentals of Urodynamic Practice, Based on International Continence Society Good Urodynamic Practices Recommendations." Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(S6):S50–S60. [doi:10.1002/nau.23773]

3. McGuire EJ, Woodside JR, Borden TA, Weiss RM. "Prognostic value of urodynamic testing in myelodysplastic patients." J Urol. 1981;126(2):205–209. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)54449-3. [PMID: 7196460]

4. Rosier PFWM, Schaefer W, Lose G, et al. "International Continence Society Good Urodynamic Practices and Terms 2016: Urodynamics, Uroflowmetry, Cystometry, and Pressure-Flow Study." Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(5):1243–1260. [doi:10.1002/nau.23124]

5. Nager CW, Brubaker L, Litman HJ, et al. "A Randomized Trial of Urodynamic Testing before Stress-Incontinence Surgery." N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1987–1997. [doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1113595]

6. Cameron AP, Chung DE, Dielubanza EJ, et al. "The AUA/SUFU Guideline on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Idiopathic Overactive Bladder." J Urol. 2024;212(1):11–20. [doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003985]

7. Ginsberg DA, Boone TB, Cameron AP, et al. "The AUA/SUFU Guideline on Adult Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Diagnosis and Evaluation." J Urol. 2021;206(5):1097–1105. [doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002235]

8. Ruffolo AF, Tsiapakidou S, Daykan Y, et al. "European Urogynaecological Association Position Statement: The Role of Urodynamics in Stress Urinary Incontinence Evaluation and Treatment Decision." Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2024;297:176–181. [doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.04.024]

9. Lor KY, Soupashi M, Abdel-Fattah M, Mostafa A. "Does Pre-Operative Urodynamics Lead to Better Outcomes in Management of Urinary Incontinence in Women? A Linked Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;244:141–153. [doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.11.013]

10. Clement KD, Lapitan MC, Omar MI, Glazener CM. "Urodynamic Studies for Management of Urinary Incontinence in Children and Adults." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(10):CD003195. [doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003195.pub3]

11. Malik RD, Hess DS, Carmel ME, Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. "Prospective Evaluation of Urodynamic Utility in a Subspecialty Tertiary Practice." Urology. 2019;126:59–64. [doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.01.004]

12. Klingler HC, Madersbacher S, Djavan B, et al. "Morbidity of the Evaluation of the Lower Urinary Tract With Transurethral Multichannel Pressure-Flow Studies." J Urol. 1998;159(1):191–194. [doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)64054-0]

13. Yokoyama T, Nozaki K, Nose H, et al. "Tolerability and Morbidity of Urodynamic Testing: A Questionnaire-Based Study." Urology. 2005;66(1):74–76. [doi:10.1016/j.urology.2005.01.027]

14. Foon R, Toozs-Hobson P, Latthe P. "Prophylactic Antibiotics to Reduce the Risk of Urinary Tract Infections After Urodynamic Studies." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD008224. [doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008224.pub2]

15. Abelson B, Majerus S, Sun D, et al. "Ambulatory Urodynamic Monitoring: State of the Art and Future Directions." Nat Rev Urol. 2019;16(5):291–301. doi:10.1038/s41585-019-0175-5.

16. Leitner L, Walter M, Sammer U, Knüpfer SC, Mehnert U, Kessler TM. "Urodynamic Investigation: A Valid Tool to Define Normal Lower Urinary Tract Function?" PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0163847. [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163847]

17. Wyman JF, Zhou J, Yvette LaCoursiere D, et al. "Normative Noninvasive Bladder Function Measurements in Healthy Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(2):507–522. [doi:10.1002/nau.24265]

18. Girman CJ, Panser LA, Chute CG, et al. "Natural History of Prostatism: Urinary Flow Rates in a Community-Based Study." J Urol. 1993;150(3):887–892. [doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35640-9]

19. Wyndaele JJ, Gammie A, Bruschini H, et al. "Bladder Compliance What Does It Represent: Can We Measure It, and Is It Clinically Relevant?" Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(5):714–722. [doi:10.1002/nau.21129]

20. Rosier PF, Kirschner-Hermanns R, Svihra J, Homma Y, Wein AJ. "ICS Teaching Module: Analysis of Voiding, Pressure Flow Analysis (Basic Module)." Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(1):36–38. [doi:10.1002/nau.22660]

21. D'Ancona C, Haylen B, Oelke M, et al. "The International Continence Society (ICS) Report on the Terminology for Adult Male Lower Urinary Tract and Pelvic Floor Symptoms and Dysfunction." Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(2):433–477. [doi:10.1002/nau.23897]

22. Rosier PFWM, et al. "ICS-SUFU standard: Theory, terms, and recommendations for pressure-flow studies performance, analysis, and reporting. Part 1." Neurourol Urodyn. 2023;42:1590–1602. doi:10.1002/nau.25192.

23. Rosier PFWM, et al. "ICS-SUFU standard: Theory, terms, and recommendations for pressure-flow studies performance, analysis, and reporting. Part 2." Neurourol Urodyn. 2023;42:1603–1627. doi:10.1002/nau.25187.

24. AUA/SUFU. "Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI): Guideline (2023)." J Urol. 2023. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003435. Guideline.

25. EAU. Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines, 2026. Diagnosis.

26. EAU. Management of Non-neurogenic Male LUTS Guidelines, 2026. Diagnostic evaluation.

27. Clout M, et al. "Five-year Follow-up of the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods—A Noninferiority Randomised Controlled Trial of Urodynamics." Eur Urol Focus. 2025;11:618–624. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2025.02.004.

28. Abdel-Fattah M, et al. "Invasive urodynamic investigations in the management of women with refractory overactive bladder symptoms (FUTURE): a superiority randomised controlled trial." Lancet. 2025. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01886-5. PubMed.

29. Clout M, et al. Urodynamics tests for the diagnosis and management of male bladder outlet obstruction: long-term follow-up of the UPSTREAM non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2025. doi:10.3310/SLPT4675. Report.

30. Fowler CJ, Christmas TJ, Chapple CR, et al. "Abnormal electromyographic activity of the urethral sphincter, voiding dysfunction, and polycystic ovaries: a new syndrome?" BMJ. 1988;297:1436–1438. doi:10.1136/bmj.297.6661.1436.

31. EAU. Non-neurogenic Female LUTS Guidelines, 2026. Disease management: functional bladder outlet obstruction.

32. Cameron AP, Campeau L, Brucker BM, et al. "Best practice policy statement on urodynamic antibiotic prophylaxis in the non-index patient." Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:915–926. doi:10.1002/nau.23253.

33. EAU. Urological Infections Guidelines, 2026. Periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis.

34. FDA. Glean Urodynamics System, K253537. April 16, 2026. Clearance letter, indications and 510(k) summary.

35. Siddiqui NY, Ackerman AL, Advani SD, et al. "Management of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Adult Female Populations." Urogynecology (Phila). 2025;31(9):827–845. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001731

36. Writing group of the International Urogynecological Association. "IUGA report on reporting urodynamics in women." Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33:801–807. doi:10.1007/s00192-021-04742-w

37. Lightner DJ, Wymer K, Sanchez J, Kavoussi L. Best Practice Statement on Urologic Procedures and Antimicrobial Prophylaxis. J Urol. 2020;203(2):351–356. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000509

38. Haylen BT, Ashby D, Sutherst JR, Frazer MI, West CR. "Maximum and Average Urine Flow Rates in Normal Male and Female Populations: The Liverpool Nomograms." Br J Urol. 1989;64(1):30–38. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.1989.tb05518.x

39. Kolman C, Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Lieber MM. "Distribution of Post-Void Residual Urine Volume in Randomly Selected Men." J Urol. 1999;161(1):122–127. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)62081-0. PMID 10037383

40. Berges R, Oelke M. "Age-Stratified Normal Values for Prostate Volume, PSA, Maximum Urinary Flow Rate, IPSS, and Other LUTS/BPH Indicators in the German Male Community-Dwelling Population Aged 50 Years or Older." World J Urol. 2011;29(2):171–178. doi:10.1007/s00345-010-0638-z

41. Roberts RO, Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, et al. "Longitudinal Changes in Peak Urinary Flow Rates in a Community Based Cohort." J Urol. 2000;163(1):107–113. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)67984-0. PMID 10604326

42. Kuo HC. "The Uroflowmetry in Normal Men and After Prostatectomy." Eur Urol. 1997;31(4):447–452. doi:10.1159/000474505

43. Lim LY, Yang SS. "Normal Postvoid Residual Urine in Healthy Adults." Neurourol Urodyn. 2024;43(1):81–87. doi:10.1002/nau.25294

44. Goueli R, Badlani GH, Welliver C, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline (2026). Evaluation, Statement 3. American Urological Association; 2026.

45. Reynard JM, Yang Q, Donovan JL, et al. "The ICS-'BPH' Study: uroflowmetry, lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction." Br J Urol. 1998;82(5):619–623. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00813.x

46. Solomon E, Yasmin H, Duffy M, Rashid T, Akinluyi E, Greenwell TJ. Developing and Validating a New Nomogram for Diagnosing Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Women. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(1):368-378. doi:10.1002/nau.23307

47. Malde S, Nambiar AK, Umbach R, et al. Systematic Review of the Performance of Noninvasive Tests in Diagnosing Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Eur Urol. 2017;71(3):391-402. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.09.026

48. Drake M, Tindle R, Lee S-M. Cystometry and Pressure-Flow Studies. In: Drake M, Hashim H, Gammie A, eds. Abrams' Urodynamics. 4th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2021:109-157. doi:10.1002/9781119245957.ch7

49. Bomalaski MD, Bloom DA. Urodynamics and Massive Vesicoureteral Reflux. J Urol. 1997;158(3 Pt 2):1236-1238. doi:10.1097/00005392-199709000-00147

50. Podnar S, Vodušek DB. Electrophysiologic Evaluation of the Pelvic Floor. In: Martins FE, Holm HV, Sandhu JS, McCammon KA, eds. Female Genitourinary and Pelvic Floor Reconstruction. Springer; 2023:139-155. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-19598-3_9

51. Miller BD, Tallman CT, Boone TB, Khavari R. Low Interrater Reliability of Videourodynamic Diagnosis of Detrusor External Sphincter Dyssynergia. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(5):297-299. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000754

52. Tawadros C, Burnett K, Derbyshire LF, Tawadros T, Clarke NW, Betts CD. External Urethral Sphincter Electromyography in Asymptomatic Women and the Influence of the Menstrual Cycle. BJU Int. 2015;116(3):423-431. doi:10.1111/bju.13042

53. Aiello M, Jelski J, Lewis A, et al. Quality Control of Uroflowmetry and Urodynamic Data From Two Large Multicenter Studies of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(4):1170-1177. doi:10.1002/nau.24337

54. Thomas L, Tindle R, Gammie A. Troubleshooting During Urodynamics. In: Drake M, Hashim H, Gammie A, eds. Abrams' Urodynamics. 4th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2021:371-382.

55. Verla W, Oosterlinck W, Spinoit AF, Waterloos M. A Comprehensive Review Emphasizing Anatomy, Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Male Urethral Stricture Disease. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:9046430. doi:10.1155/2019/9046430

56. Mevcha A, Napier-Hemy R. Uroflowmetry. In: Drake M, Hashim H, Gammie A, eds. Abrams' Urodynamics. 4th ed. Wiley-Blackwell; 2021:95-108.

57. Bauer SB. Pediatric Neurology. In: Krane RJ, Siroky MB, eds. Clinical Neurourology. Little Brown; 1979:275-294.

58. Yerkes EB, Cheng EY, Wiener JS, et al. "Translating pediatric urodynamics from clinic into collaborative research: Lessons and recommendations from the UMPIRE study group." J Pediatr Urol. 2021;17(5):716-725. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.05.004

59. March-Villalba JA, López Salazar A, Romeu Magraner G, et al. "Analysis of pain perception associated with urodynamic testing in children over 3 years old." Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2021;45(3):232-238. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2020.10.005

60. Finkelstein JB, Cahill D, Graber K, et al. "Anxiety, distress, and pain in pediatric urodynamics." Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(4):1178-1184. doi:10.1002/nau.24339

61. Ergun R, Sekerci CA, Tanidir Y, et al. "Detrusor Pressures Change with Repeat Filling Cystometry in Myelodysplastic Children with Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction." J Urol. 2021;205(2):577-585. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001335

62. Wilson B, Klufio G. "The radiological and urodynamic significance of large bladder diverticula." Clin Radiol. 1985;36(5):521-4. doi:10.1016/s0009-9260(85)80205-1

63. Adot Zurbano JM, Salinas Casado J, Dambros M, et al. "Urodynamics of the bladder diverticulum in the adult male." Arch Esp Urol. 2005;58(7):641-9. doi:10.4321/s0004-06142005000700008

64. Blaivas JG, Groutz A. "Bladder outlet obstruction nomogram for women with lower urinary tract symptomatology." Neurourol Urodyn. 2000;19(5):553-564. doi:10.1002/1520-6777(2000)19:5<553::aid-nau2>3.0.co;2-b

65. Abrams PH, Griffiths DJ. "The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine." Br J Urol. 1979;51(2):129-134. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.1979.tb02846.x

66. McGuire EJ, Fitzpatrick CC, Wan J, Bloom D, Sanvordenker J, Ritchey M, et al. "Clinical assessment of urethral sphincter function." J Urol. 1993;150(5 Pt 1):1452-1454. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35806-8

67. Lemack GE, Krauss S, Litman H, FitzGerald MP, Chai T, Nager C, et al. "Normal preoperative urodynamic testing does not predict voiding dysfunction after Burch colposuspension versus pubovaginal sling." J Urol. 2008;180(5):2076-2080. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.027

68. Stoffel JT, Peterson AC, Sandhu JS, Suskind AM, Wei JT, Lightner DJ. "AUA White Paper on Nonneurogenic Chronic Urinary Retention: Consensus Definition, Treatment Algorithm, and Outcome End Points." J Urol. 2017;198(1):153–160. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.075

69. Biardeau X, Aharony S, AUS Consensus Group, Campeau L, Corcos J. "Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Report of the 2015 Consensus Conference." Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(Suppl 2):S8–S24. doi:10.1002/nau.22989

70. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Urethral Strictures. 2026. Perioperative care of urethral surgery: urethral rest.

71. European Association of Urology. EAU Guidelines on Neuro-urology. 2026. The guideline: urodynamics.

72. Ginsberg DA, Boone TB, Cameron AP, et al. "The AUA/SUFU Guideline on Adult Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Treatment and Follow-up." J Urol. 2021;206(5):1106–1113. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000002239

73. Young GJ, Metcalfe C, Lane JA, et al. "Prostate Surgery for Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms: Do We Need Urodynamics to Find the Right Candidates? Exploratory Findings from the UPSTREAM Trial." Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(5):1331–1339. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2021.11.010