OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of portable and stationary ultrasonography equipment in estimating residual bladder volume. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: A rehabilitation hospital affiliated with a medical university in Taiwan. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four patients with voiding dysfunction. INTERVENTIONS: Each patient received both types of ultrasonography, plus catheterization (as the criterion standard for measuring bladder volume). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean errors and mean percentage error resulting from use of the 2 types of equipment were recorded. RESULTS: Stationary real-time ultrasonography had a lower absolute error (21.9+/-25.0 mL vs 34.4+/-38.2 mL) and percentage error (13.1%+/-10.5% vs 36%+/-52.4%) than the portable ultrasonography (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Stationary ultrasonography provided a more accurate estimate of residual bladder volumes than did the portable device. However, portable ultrasonography is more convenient to use and has an acceptable accuracy for clinical use.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of portable and stationary ultrasonography equipment in estimating residual bladder volume. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: A rehabilitation hospital affiliated with a medical university in Taiwan. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four patients with voiding dysfunction. INTERVENTIONS: Each patient received both types of ultrasonography, plus catheterization (as the criterion standard for measuring bladder volume). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The mean errors and mean percentage error resulting from use of the 2 types of equipment were recorded. RESULTS: Stationary real-time ultrasonography had a lower absolute error (21.9+/-25.0 mL vs 34.4+/-38.2 mL) and percentage error (13.1%+/-10.5% vs 36%+/-52.4%) than the portable ultrasonography (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Stationary ultrasonography provided a more accurate estimate of residual bladder volumes than did the portable device. However, portable ultrasonography is more convenient to use and has an acceptable accuracy for clinical use.
Authors: Tammo A Brouwer; Charina van den Boogaard; Eric N van Roon; Cor J Kalkman; Nic Veeger Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 2.502