Cargando…

Evaluation of a 3‐dimensional ultrasound device for noninvasive measurement of urinary bladder volume in dogs

BACKGROUND: The BladderScan Prime Plus (BPP; Verathon, Bothell, Washington) is an application‐specific, three‐dimensional ultrasound device used for human, point‐of‐care volumetry of the urinary bladder. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the BPP's accuracy, repeatability, and optimized settings for assess...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: DiFazio, Matthew R., Thomason, Justin D., Cernicchiaro, Natalia, Biller, David, Thomason, Sasha, Harness, Paxton
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379002/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32463540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvim.15811
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The BladderScan Prime Plus (BPP; Verathon, Bothell, Washington) is an application‐specific, three‐dimensional ultrasound device used for human, point‐of‐care volumetry of the urinary bladder. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the BPP's accuracy, repeatability, and optimized settings for assessing urinary bladder volumes in dogs, a variable utilized in assessing micturition disorders. ANIMALS: Twenty‐four, client‐owned, healthy, male dogs presenting for routine examination. METHODS: Prospective examinations were conducted by an experienced ultrasonographer and a novice, selecting the BPP's “man” or “child” setting, and were compared to urine volume obtained by catheterization. RESULTS: Mean urine volume significantly varied by operator (P = .05), device setting (P < .001), and weight (P = .01); the “man” setting produced mean volumes nearer to catheterized volumes. The mean difference between BPP's “man” setting and catheterized volume was 0.88 mL, with maximal positive and negative disagreement of +23.2 mL to −55.3 mL (SD 19.0). Percent disagreement between BPP and catheterized volumes demonstrated a mean of −4.5%, with maximal positive and negative disagreement of +58.1% to −74.1% (SD 34.9). The experienced operator recorded volumes significantly (P = .05) higher than the novice, with difference in means of 3.2 mL. In dogs weighing >5.5 kg (n = 18/24), mean difference between BPP's “man” setting and catheterized measurements, regardless of operator, was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although small magnitude interuser variability is present in BPP examinations, the device provides accurate, though imprecise quantification of bladder volume in canids weighing >5.5 kg.