Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 May-Jun;7(5-6):185-8.
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1320.

The effect of a 6 Fr catheter in women: Are they obstructive?

Affiliations

The effect of a 6 Fr catheter in women: Are they obstructive?

Patrick Richard et al. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 May-Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate the effect of a 6 Fr transurethral catheter on the uroflowmetry and to assess whether it potentially contributes to the bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in women.

Methods: We reviewed the charts of 1367 women who underwent an urodynamic study. We included patients with a non-invasive free-flow study (NIFFS) and pressure flow study (PFS) performed through a 6 Fr double lumen transurethral catheter.

Results: In total, 120 women met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Mean maximal flow rate (Qmax) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the NIFFS (27.2±11.1 mL/s) than in the PFS (19.3±10.6 mL/s). The mean difference between both Qmax was 7.9±12.0 mL/s. Of these women, 92.3% (24/26) with a Qmax <12 mL/s during PFS were found to have a Qmax ≥12 mL/s during the NIFFS. Ten of the 72 women with an available Pdet.Qmax were deemed to have a BOO according to the PFS and all of them had a Qmax >12 mL/s during the NIFFS. Of the 10 patients, only 2 reported obstructive symptoms.

Conclusion: The presence of 6 Fr transurethral catheters alters the PFS and results in a significant reduction of the Qmax in patients who voided more than 250 mL. We believe that NIFFS should be performed in all patients before any urethral manipulation to lower a possible overdiagnosis of BOO and findings should always be correlated to clinical symptoms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Are urodynamics still useful?
    Steele SS. Steele SS. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 May-Jun;7(5-6):E452-3. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1398. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013. PMID: 23826066 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Are urodynamics still useful?
    Steele SS. Steele SS. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 May-Jun;7(5-6):E452-3. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1398. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013. PMID: 23826066 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Detrusor pressures in urodynamic studies during voiding in women.
    Kira S, Mitsui T, Kobayashi H, Haneda Y, Sawada N, Takeda M. Kira S, et al. Int Urogynecol J. 2017 May;28(5):783-787. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3203-5. Epub 2016 Dec 20. Int Urogynecol J. 2017. PMID: 27999934
  • Computing maximum flow rates.
    Valentini FA. Valentini FA. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Mar-Apr;8(3-4):E215. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1765. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014. PMID: 24678371 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Nitti VW, Tu LM, Gitlin J. Diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women. J Urol. 1999;161:1535–40. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68947-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chassagne S, Bernier PA, Haab F, et al. Proposed cutoff values to define bladder outlet obstruction in women. Urology. 1998;51:408–11. doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00634-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lemack GE, Zimmern PE, Shariat SF. Pressure flow analysis may aid in identifying women with outflow obstruction. J Urol. 2000;163:1823–7. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67552-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Defreitas GA, Zimmern PE, Lemack GE, et al. Refining the diagnosis of anatomic female bladder outlet obstruction: a comparison of pressure-flow study parameters in clinically obstructed women to those of normal controls. Urology. 2004;64:675–81. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.04.089. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kuo HC. Urodynamic Parameters for the Diagnosis of Bladder Outlet Obstruction in Women. Urol Int. 2004;72:46–51. doi: 10.1159/000075272. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources