A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
- PMID: 26558102
- PMCID: PMC4442998
- DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2013.06.004
A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation
Abstract
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 (Qmax) 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 Qmax and higher PVR than those voiding with one catheter (group 4). The reduction in Qmax was highest in group 3 (41.9%) and least in group 2 (21%). Group 4 showed no significant change in Qmax 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.
Keywords: DU, detrusor underactivity; Free uroflow; LUT, lower urinary tract; Lower urinary tract dysfunction; PFS, pressure-flow study; PVR, postvoid residual volume; Qmax, maximum urinary flow rate; QmaxP, Qmax on PFS; UDS, urodynamic study; Urodynamic catheter.
Similar articles
-
The influence of intubation on urinary flow parameters in pressure-flow study and its significance for urodynamic diagnosis.Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Nov;33(11):3103-3110. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05082-z. Epub 2022 Jan 27. Int Urogynecol J. 2022. PMID: 35084512 Review.
-
Identifying occult bladder outlet obstruction in women with detrusor-underactivity-like urodynamic profiles.Sci Rep. 2021 Dec 1;11(1):23242. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-02617-0. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID: 34853346 Free PMC article.
-
The challenges in the diagnosis of detrusor underactivity in clinical practice: A mini-review.Arab J Urol. 2016 Jul 25;14(3):223-7. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2016.06.005. eCollection 2016 Sep. Arab J Urol. 2016. PMID: 27547465 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Age-specific prevalence, clinical and urodynamic findings of detrusor underactivity and bladder outlet obstruction in female voiding dysfunction.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024 Nov;167(2):797-803. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15705. Epub 2024 May 27. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024. PMID: 38800864
-
Urodynamic and clinical features in women with overactive bladder: When to suspect concomitant voiding dysfunction?Neurourol Urodyn. 2021 Aug;40(6):1509-1514. doi: 10.1002/nau.24688. Epub 2021 May 26. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021. PMID: 34036625
Cited by
-
The influence of intubation on urinary flow parameters in pressure-flow study and its significance for urodynamic diagnosis.Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Nov;33(11):3103-3110. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05082-z. Epub 2022 Jan 27. Int Urogynecol J. 2022. PMID: 35084512 Review.
-
Impact of urethral catheterization on uroflow during pressure-flow study.J Int Med Res. 2016 Oct;44(5):1034-1039. doi: 10.1177/0300060516657700. Epub 2016 Sep 27. J Int Med Res. 2016. PMID: 27565744 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Valentini F.A., Robain G., Hennebelle D.S., Nelson P.P. Decreased maximum flow rate during intubated flow is not only due to urethral catheter in situ. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;24:461–467. - PubMed
-
- Harding C., Horsburgh B., Dorkin T.J., Thorpe A.C. Quantifying the effect of urodynamic catheters on urine flow rate measurement. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31:139–142. - PubMed
-
- Rumbeckas D., Milonas D., Jievaltas M., Danilevicius M., Matjosaitis A.J. Influence of catheter on urinary flow during urodynamic pressure-flow study in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Medicina (Kaunas) 2006;42:15–21. - PubMed
-
- Zhao S.C., Zheng S.B., Tan W.L., Mao X.M., Zhang P., Huang Z.M. Effects of transurethral catheterization on uroflow rate in the pressure-flow study of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2007;13:710–712. - PubMed
-
- Klingler H.C., Madersbacher S., Schmidbauer C.P. Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn. 1996;15:473–481. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials