Cargando…

Voiding Pressures in Boys: Pdetmax versus PdetQmax – Does it Make a Difference?

INTRODUCTION: Invasive urodynamics (UDS) is a standard investigation in children. Studies measuring voiding pressures in children use varied nomenclatures and quote a wide range of voiding pressures. Thus, voiding pressures in children are not considered reliable and they do not find any place in th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaze, Poonam Guha, Saha, Subhasis, Sinha, Rajiv
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10455708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37635896
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_51_23
_version_ 1785096517807243264
author Vaze, Poonam Guha
Saha, Subhasis
Sinha, Rajiv
author_facet Vaze, Poonam Guha
Saha, Subhasis
Sinha, Rajiv
author_sort Vaze, Poonam Guha
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Invasive urodynamics (UDS) is a standard investigation in children. Studies measuring voiding pressures in children use varied nomenclatures and quote a wide range of voiding pressures. Thus, voiding pressures in children are not considered reliable and they do not find any place in the pediatric diagnostic armamentarium. On the contrary, adult studies have well-defined nomograms and standard values which make voiding studies indispensable in the diagnosis of voiding dysfunctions in adults. The difference primarily lies in the uniformity of parameters assessed in adults and the contrasting heterogeneity in the pediatric literature. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study the voiding parameters observed during UDS in boys. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed the pressure flow data obtained during conventional invasive UDS in 106 neurologically normal boys (6 months–16 years) who had different indications for urodynamics. The values of Pdetmax and PdetQmax were analyzed and compared with the existing data of pressure flow studies in children. RESULTS: Pdetmax decreased with age whereas PdetQmax was independent of age. The difference between the values of Pdetmax and PdetQmax was more in the younger kids. The wide range of voiding detrusor pressure (Pdet) in the existing pediatric literature is similar to the values of Pdetmax observed in our study, whereas the value of PdetQmax is much lower. DISCUSSION: The values of Pdetmax observed in this study are similar to the values of “maximum Pdet during voiding” documented in previous studies and are determined by detrusor contractility and functional/dynamic contraction of outflow during voiding. PdetQmax has been documented in very few pediatric studies and is significantly less than Pdetmax. Further prospective studies are needed to corroborate UDS findings with radiologic/cystoscopic findings to create nomograms of voiding parameters in children. CONCLUSION: Existing literature on pediatric voiding studies mentions voiding pressures during variable phases of void (usually Pdetmax) and the values have been very heterogeneous, making voiding pressure-flow studies unreliable in children. PdetQmax values are much lower than values quoted as “standard” pressures and are age independent. The use of PdetQmax instead of PdetMax may make voiding pressures in children more reproducible and informative.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10455708
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104557082023-08-26 Voiding Pressures in Boys: Pdetmax versus PdetQmax – Does it Make a Difference? Vaze, Poonam Guha Saha, Subhasis Sinha, Rajiv J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg Original Article INTRODUCTION: Invasive urodynamics (UDS) is a standard investigation in children. Studies measuring voiding pressures in children use varied nomenclatures and quote a wide range of voiding pressures. Thus, voiding pressures in children are not considered reliable and they do not find any place in the pediatric diagnostic armamentarium. On the contrary, adult studies have well-defined nomograms and standard values which make voiding studies indispensable in the diagnosis of voiding dysfunctions in adults. The difference primarily lies in the uniformity of parameters assessed in adults and the contrasting heterogeneity in the pediatric literature. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to study the voiding parameters observed during UDS in boys. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed the pressure flow data obtained during conventional invasive UDS in 106 neurologically normal boys (6 months–16 years) who had different indications for urodynamics. The values of Pdetmax and PdetQmax were analyzed and compared with the existing data of pressure flow studies in children. RESULTS: Pdetmax decreased with age whereas PdetQmax was independent of age. The difference between the values of Pdetmax and PdetQmax was more in the younger kids. The wide range of voiding detrusor pressure (Pdet) in the existing pediatric literature is similar to the values of Pdetmax observed in our study, whereas the value of PdetQmax is much lower. DISCUSSION: The values of Pdetmax observed in this study are similar to the values of “maximum Pdet during voiding” documented in previous studies and are determined by detrusor contractility and functional/dynamic contraction of outflow during voiding. PdetQmax has been documented in very few pediatric studies and is significantly less than Pdetmax. Further prospective studies are needed to corroborate UDS findings with radiologic/cystoscopic findings to create nomograms of voiding parameters in children. CONCLUSION: Existing literature on pediatric voiding studies mentions voiding pressures during variable phases of void (usually Pdetmax) and the values have been very heterogeneous, making voiding pressure-flow studies unreliable in children. PdetQmax values are much lower than values quoted as “standard” pressures and are age independent. The use of PdetQmax instead of PdetMax may make voiding pressures in children more reproducible and informative. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023 2023-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10455708/ /pubmed/37635896 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_51_23 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Vaze, Poonam Guha
Saha, Subhasis
Sinha, Rajiv
Voiding Pressures in Boys: Pdetmax versus PdetQmax – Does it Make a Difference?
title Voiding Pressures in Boys: Pdetmax versus PdetQmax – Does it Make a Difference?
title_full Voiding Pressures in Boys: Pdetmax versus PdetQmax – Does it Make a Difference?
title_fullStr Voiding Pressures in Boys: Pdetmax versus PdetQmax – Does it Make a Difference?
title_full_unstemmed Voiding Pressures in Boys: Pdetmax versus PdetQmax – Does it Make a Difference?
title_short Voiding Pressures in Boys: Pdetmax versus PdetQmax – Does it Make a Difference?
title_sort voiding pressures in boys: pdetmax versus pdetqmax – does it make a difference?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10455708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37635896
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_51_23
work_keys_str_mv AT vazepoonamguha voidingpressuresinboyspdetmaxversuspdetqmaxdoesitmakeadifference
AT sahasubhasis voidingpressuresinboyspdetmaxversuspdetqmaxdoesitmakeadifference
AT sinharajiv voidingpressuresinboyspdetmaxversuspdetqmaxdoesitmakeadifference