Video urodynamic studies are the most technologically advanced clinical method for diagnosing voiding dysfunction, and it serves as a prototypical illustration of the successful transition from analog to digital machine technology that has accompanied rapid industrial development in recent years. However, as a clinician who has performed urodynamic tests in both eras, I would like to point out one critical disadvantage of modern digital machines. The most significant advantage of video urodynamic studies in the analog era was that the function-synchronized bladder and urethral movements were recorded on videotape and could be viewed and analyzed at any time following the test. Modern digital machines lack this advantage of older analog machines. The original definition of “video” refers to a recording of an image or moving images [3]. The majority of medical professionals who carry out urodynamic tests agree that these tests involve moving images. For the human eye to be able to detect motion, a frame rate of greater than 15 per second is required [4]. Storing large numbers of images to show motion was not a problem with videotape, but it appears to be an issue in the digital era. Therefore, it is presumed that this technical limitation with computers was handled by limiting the number of images that could be saved. For this reason, I think that the term “cystographic urodynamic study,” rather than “video urodynamic study,” would better describe what is done with modern digital urodynamic study devices, because the images do not appear to be in motion.

Our group has made several attempts to overcome these limitations of digital machines, and we would like to briefly introduce recent success stories and over 200 experiences. We initially attempted to solve this problem by installing screen-capture software on the computer used for urodynamic testing, but we soon realized that the screen-capture software interfered with the urodynamic examination software being run at the same time. To store screen data without impacting the urodynamic examination software, an external device and another computer were attached to the urodynamic monitor in place of the urodynamic computer. The videos saved by the current urodynamic machine are now perceived as videos where motion can be seen, just like with the video urodynamic machines from the old analog period (Video clips 1, 2). In this editorial, I would like to emphasize that now is the time to take action to advance urodynamic testing.