OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical diagnosis of the urinary incontinence with the results of LPP and URP obtained by non-multichannel urodynamic. To evaluate the tolerance of the patients to this examination. PATIENT AND METHOD Between August and December 2006, 100 urodynamics were made in patients with clinical diagnosis of urinary incontinence, in the Urogynecology Unit of Clinica Las Condes. The clinical diagnosis was compared with the urodynamic results. A subjective tolerance scale was applied (0 was greater tolerance and 10 was maximum discomfort). RESULTS In 66 patients with clinical diagnosis of IUS, the urodynamic registered 10 Type 0, 2 (I), 23 (II), 1 (III), 17 (II+III), 1 hyperactive detrusor, 5 (0+ hyperactive detrusor). 3 (II+hyperactive detrusor) and 4 (II+III+hyperactive detrusor). In 15 with Mixed urinary incontinence, the urodynamic showed 6 (Type 0), 2 (II), 2 (II+III), 3 hyperactive detrusor, 1 (II+hyperactive detrusor) and 1 (III+hyperactive detrusor). In 16 patients with urgency incontinence, urodynamic showed 2 normal, 4 (II+III), 7 hyperactive detrusor, 1 (II+hyperactive detrusor) and 2 (II+III+hyperactive detrusor). In 3 patients (two vaginal cuff prolapse and one cistocele, degree IV POP-Q) the urodynamic was indicated in the pre-surgery study considering a great potentially incontinence after correction. Respectively, the patients presented: IUS type III+hyperactive detrusor, IUS type II+III and one normal. All patients expressed 2 and 3 degree tolerance (subjective scale: 1 major tolerance and 10 a minor tolerance). CONCLUSIONS The MoniTorr MR urodynamic is a complementary examination very useful in the study of the urinary incontinence. It allows planning the solution adapted for each case and has a high degree of tolerance in the patients.