Parental perception of contrast enhanced voiding ultrasonography urodynamics vs fluoroscopic urodynamics

Abstract

Introduction/objectives: Contrast enhanced voiding ultrasonography (ceVUS) has not been widely reported to be used during video urodynamics (UDS). We previously reported on the feasibility of this. In this study, we aimed to understand how parents perceived their child's experience of undergoing ceVUS during UDS compared to fluoroscopic (fluoro) UDS.

Methods: Children who underwent both fluoro UDS and ceVUS UDS were recruited. Parents were asked to complete a questionnaire to evaluate their experience with both studies. Demographics including gender, age at study, and diagnosis were collected to account for differences in perception. Statistical analysis was performed.

Results: 53 patients were included: 31 girls, 22 boys. Diagnoses included myelomeningocele (67.9%), low/tethered cord (13.2%), closed spinal dysraphism (9.4%), posterior urethral valve (1.9%), cloacal anomaly (1.9%), caudal regression (1.9%), myeloschisis (1.9%), and cerebral palsy (1.9%). There was no statistical difference in mean age at fluoro UDS and ceVUS UDS (77.3 months vs 99.7 months respectively, p = 0.09). All 53 parents (100%) were satisfied/very satisfied with their ceVUS experience; 48 parents (90.6%) preferred ceVUS, 3 parents (5.7%) preferred fluoro UDS, and 2 (3.8%) were neutral. On average, parents perceived ceVUS to be more comfortable (72.7%) and produce better results (67.4%) than fluoro UDS. The majority felt that both studies allowed the same contact with their child (52.3%) and took the same amount of time (50.0%). However 29.5% felt ceVUS was faster and 34.1% felt ceVUS allowed more contact with their child (Fig. 1). 26 parents (49.1%) specifically noted no radiation as the reason why they preferred ceVUS over fluoro. The average age at ceVUS UDS was younger in those who preferred ceVUS UDS compared to those who preferred fluoro UDS (94.6 months vs 180.0 months, p = 0.03). The average age at fluoro UDS was younger in those who preferred ceVUS UDS vs fluoro UDS (73.1 months vs 144 months, p = 0.03). Gender's influence on preference approached significance (p = 0.07); all 3 parents who preferred fluoro UDS had male children.

Conclusions: The majority of parents preferred ceVUS over fluoro UDS. ceVUS was perceived to be more comfortable and provide better results. Many parents highlighted no radiation and no fluoroscopic machinery as factors in preference of ceVUS over fluoro. The parents who preferred ceVUS UDS had children who had both studies done at an earlier age compared to the parents who preferred fluoro UDS.

Keywords: Fluoroscopy; Parental perception; Radiation; Urodynamics; ceVUS.