Perineal ultrasound versus urodynamics
Research type
Research Study
Full title
A comparison between translabial ultrasound and urodynamics for the diagnosis of stress incontinence.
IRAS ID
209834
Contact name
Maya Basu
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Medway NHS Foundation Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 6 months, 1 days
Research summary
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) refers to leaking of urine with actions such as coughing, sneezing, exercise and exertion. It is a very common and debilitating condition amongst women. When conservative treatments such as pelvic floor muscle training fail to improve symptoms, the next recommended treatment options are various types of surgical procedures which aim to correct the weakness in the support of the urethra (water pipe). In order to confirm the diagnosis of stress incontinence, most surgeons will recommend performing an invasive test called urodynamics, which involves having small tubes inserted into the bladder and back passage with the aim of measuring how the bladder behaves and reproducing the leakage. Whilst this is a well accepted and well tolerated test for most women, we are keen to explore whether ultrasound would be a less invasive and as accurate way of looking at whether there is a weakness in the supports of the water pipe. If we were able to prove that women with stress incontinence have a characteristic appearance on ultrasound, this would be the first step towards using this test as an alternative to urodynamic testing in certain women. All women who require a urodynamic test to investigate incontinence would be offered entry into the study. Participation in the study would involve undergoing an ultrasound scan in addition to the standard urodynamic test. The ultrasound scan is taken from the outside of the vagina, with no internal component. It will take approximately 5 minutes. The only intervention necessary for the study is the ultrasound scan, and this will not have any bearing on any subsequent treatments offered to patients.
REC name
West Midlands - Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/WM/0491
Date of REC Opinion
12 Dec 2016
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion