Clinical utility and interrater reliability of video urodynamics in children with isolated fibrolipoma of filum terminale

Introduction: Children with an isolated fibrolipoma of filum terminale (IFFT) but otherwise normal spinal cord are often evaluated with video urodynamics (VUDS). VUDS interpretation is subjective and can be difficult in young children. These patients may undergo detethering surgery if there is concern for current or future symptomatic tethered cord.

Objective: We hypothesized that VUDS in children with IFFT would have limited clinical utility regarding decision for or against detethering surgery and VUDS interpretation would have poor interrater reliability.

Methods: Patients with IFFT who underwent VUDS for from 2009 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed to evaluate clinical utility of VUDS. 6 pediatric urologists who were blinded to patient clinical characteristics reviewed the VUDS. Gwet's first order agreement coefficient (AC₁) with 95% CI was used to assess interrater reliability.

Results: 47 patients (24F:23M) were identified. Median age at initial evaluation was 2.8yrs (IQR:1.5-6.8). 24 (51%) patients underwent detethering surgery (Table). VUDS at initial evaluation were interpreted by treating urologist as normal in 4 (8%), reassuring for normal in 39 (81%), or concerning for abnormal in 4 (9%). Based on neurosurgery clinic and operative notes for the 47 patients, VUDS made no change in management in 37 patients (79%), prompted detethering in 3 (6%), was given as reason for observation in 7 (15%), and was normal or reassuring for normal but not documented as a reason for observation in 16 (34%) (Table). Interrater reliability for VUDS interpretation had fair agreement (AC₁ = 0.27) for overall categorization of VUDS and EMG interpretation (AC₁ = 0.34). Moderate agreement was seen for detrusor overactivity interpretation (AC₁ = 0.54) and bladder neck appearance (AC₁ = 0.46).

Discussion: In our cohort, 90% of patients had a normal or reassuring for normal interpretation of VUDS. VUDS interpretation affected clinical course in a minority of patients. There was fair interrater reliability for overall VUDS interpretation and therefore clinical course regarding detethering surgery could vary depending upon interpreting urologist. This fair interrater variability appeared to be related to variability in EMG, bladder neck appearance, and detrusor overactivity interpretation.

Conclusion: VUDS affected clinical management in about 20% of our cohort and supported the choice for observation in around 50% of patients. This suggests VUDS does have clinical utility in pediatric patients with IFFT. The overall VUDS interpretation had fair interrater reliability. This suggest VUDS interpretation has limitations in determining normal versus abnormal bladder function in children with IFFT. Neurosurgeons and urologists should be aware of VUDS limitations in this patient population.