Cargando…

A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the urodynamic catheter on the urinary flow rate and residual volume in various urodynamic diagnoses, and compare the outcome when using a smaller catheter, as the effect of this catheter on free uroflow variables is mostly studied in patients with bladder outlet o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sharma, Adittya K., Poonawala, Ali, Girish, G.N., Kamath, A.J., Keshavmurthy, R., Nagaraja, N.H., Venkatesh, G.K., Ratkal, C.S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4442998/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26558102
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.06.004
_version_ 1782372960028327936
author Sharma, Adittya K.
Poonawala, Ali
Girish, G.N.
Kamath, A.J.
Keshavmurthy, R.
Nagaraja, N.H.
Venkatesh, G.K.
Ratkal, C.S.
author_facet Sharma, Adittya K.
Poonawala, Ali
Girish, G.N.
Kamath, A.J.
Keshavmurthy, R.
Nagaraja, N.H.
Venkatesh, G.K.
Ratkal, C.S.
author_sort Sharma, Adittya K.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the urodynamic catheter on the urinary flow rate and residual volume in various urodynamic diagnoses, and compare the outcome when using a smaller catheter, as the effect of this catheter on free uroflow variables is mostly studied in patients with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and little is known about its effect in other urodynamic diagnoses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 319 men undergoing a pressure-flow study (PFS) with a 5 F filling and 5 F measuring bladder catheter were subdivided into three groups based on a urodynamic diagnosis, i.e. normal PFS (group 1), BOO (group 2) and detrusor underactivity (DU, group 3). Another group (4) comprised 61 patients who had a PFS with the filling catheter removed before the voiding phase. The effect of the catheters on the maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)) and the postvoid residual volume (PVR) was analysed statistically and compared among the groups. We also compared the free-flow variables with the clinical and urodynamic variables. RESULTS: Groups 1–3 (with two catheters) had a significantly lower Q(max) and higher PVR than those voiding with one catheter (group 4). The reduction in Q(max) was highest in group 3 (41.9%) and least in group 2 (21%). Group 4 showed no significant change in Q(max) in cases with BOO and a normal PFS but a significant decline in those with DU (19.6%). The PVR was positively associated with the bladder capacity and negatively with detrusor contractility, but no association with a urodynamic diagnosis of BOO or any specific symptom. CONCLUSION: Detrusor contractility was the strongest predictor of the obstructive effect caused by the catheter. This study justifies the use of a single 5 F catheter at the time of voiding, although that can also cause a reduction in flow in patients with DU.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4442998
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44429982015-11-10 A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation Sharma, Adittya K. Poonawala, Ali Girish, G.N. Kamath, A.J. Keshavmurthy, R. Nagaraja, N.H. Venkatesh, G.K. Ratkal, C.S. Arab J Urol VOIDING DYSFUNCTION/FEMALE UROLOGY / Female Urology Original Article OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the urodynamic catheter on the urinary flow rate and residual volume in various urodynamic diagnoses, and compare the outcome when using a smaller catheter, as the effect of this catheter on free uroflow variables is mostly studied in patients with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and little is known about its effect in other urodynamic diagnoses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 319 men undergoing a pressure-flow study (PFS) with a 5 F filling and 5 F measuring bladder catheter were subdivided into three groups based on a urodynamic diagnosis, i.e. normal PFS (group 1), BOO (group 2) and detrusor underactivity (DU, group 3). Another group (4) comprised 61 patients who had a PFS with the filling catheter removed before the voiding phase. The effect of the catheters on the maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)) and the postvoid residual volume (PVR) was analysed statistically and compared among the groups. We also compared the free-flow variables with the clinical and urodynamic variables. RESULTS: Groups 1–3 (with two catheters) had a significantly lower Q(max) and higher PVR than those voiding with one catheter (group 4). The reduction in Q(max) was highest in group 3 (41.9%) and least in group 2 (21%). Group 4 showed no significant change in Q(max) in cases with BOO and a normal PFS but a significant decline in those with DU (19.6%). The PVR was positively associated with the bladder capacity and negatively with detrusor contractility, but no association with a urodynamic diagnosis of BOO or any specific symptom. CONCLUSION: Detrusor contractility was the strongest predictor of the obstructive effect caused by the catheter. This study justifies the use of a single 5 F catheter at the time of voiding, although that can also cause a reduction in flow in patients with DU. Elsevier 2013-12 2013-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4442998/ /pubmed/26558102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.06.004 Text en © 2013 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Arab Association of Urology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
spellingShingle VOIDING DYSFUNCTION/FEMALE UROLOGY / Female Urology Original Article
Sharma, Adittya K.
Poonawala, Ali
Girish, G.N.
Kamath, A.J.
Keshavmurthy, R.
Nagaraja, N.H.
Venkatesh, G.K.
Ratkal, C.S.
A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
title A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
title_full A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
title_fullStr A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
title_full_unstemmed A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
title_short A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
title_sort quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
topic VOIDING DYSFUNCTION/FEMALE UROLOGY / Female Urology Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4442998/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26558102
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.06.004
work_keys_str_mv AT sharmaadittyak aquantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT poonawalaali aquantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT girishgn aquantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT kamathaj aquantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT keshavmurthyr aquantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT nagarajanh aquantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT venkateshgk aquantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT ratkalcs aquantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT sharmaadittyak quantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT poonawalaali quantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT girishgn quantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT kamathaj quantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT keshavmurthyr quantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT nagarajanh quantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT venkateshgk quantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation
AT ratkalcs quantitativecomparisonbetweenfreeuroflowvariablesandurodynamicdataandtheeffectofthesizeofurodynamiccathetersonitsinterpretation