Literature DB >> 17131168

A comparative study of water perfusion catheters and microtip transducer catheters for urethral pressure measurements.

Annette Kuhn1, Charles W Nager, Emma Hawkins, Jane Schulz, Stuart L Stanton.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) measures with two different techniques: water perfused catheter and microtip transducer catheters with respect to reproducibility and comparability for urethral pressure measurements. Eighteen women with stress urinary incontinence had repeat static urethral pressure profilometry on a different day using a dual microtip transducer and water perfused catheter (Brown and Wickham). The investigators were blinded to the results of the other. The microtip measurements were taken in the 45 degrees upright sitting position with the patient at rest at a bladder capacity of 250 ml using an 8 Fr Gaeltec double microtip transducer withdrawn at 1 mm/s, and the transducer was orientated in the three o'clock position. Three different measures were taken for each patient. Three water perfusion measurements were performed with the patient at rest in the 45 degrees upright position at a bladder capacity of 250 ml using an 8 Fr BARD dual lumen catheter withdrawn at 1 mm/s. The mean water perfusion MUCP measure was 26.1 cm H2O, significantly lower than the mean microtip measure of 35.7 cm H2O. The correlation coefficient comparing each water perfusion measurement with the other water perfusion measures in the same patient was excellent, at 0.95 (p = 0.01). Correlation coefficient comparing each microtip measure with the other microtip measure in the same patient was also good, ranging from 0.70 to 0.80. This study confirms that both water perfusion catheters and microtip transducers have excellent or very good reproducibility with an acceptable intraindividual variation for both methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17131168     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-006-0255-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct


  13 in total

1.  A comparison of urethral pressure profilometry using microtip and double-lumen perfusion catheters in women with genuine stress incontinence.

Authors:  Alex C Wang; Min-Chi Chen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  Standardisation of urethral pressure measurement: report from the Standardisation Sub-Committee of the International Continence Society.

Authors:  Gunnar Lose; Derek Griffiths; Gordon Hosker; Sigurd Kulseng-Hanssen; Daniele Perucchini; Werner Schäfer; Peter Thind; Eboo Versi
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.696

3.  Surgical management of stress incontinence in patients with low urethral pressure.

Authors:  D A Richardson; A Ramahi; E Chalas
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 4.  Urethral function.

Authors:  D J Griffiths; E Versi
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 1.927

5.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Low urethral pressure and stress urinary incontinence in women: risk factor for failed retropubic surgical procedure.

Authors:  P P Koonings; A Bergman; C A Ballard
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  Urethral pressure profile: is it affected by position?

Authors:  Annette Dörflinger; Emma Gorton; Stuart Stanton; Ekkehard Dreher
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.696

8.  Valsalva leak point pressures in women with genuine stress incontinence: reproducibility, effect of catheter caliber, and correlations with other measures of urethral resistance. Continence Program for Women Research Group.

Authors:  R C Bump; D M Elser; J P Theofrastous; D K McClish
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Urethral pressure measurement by microtransducer: the results in symptom-free women and in those with genuine stress incontinence.

Authors:  P Hilton; S L Stanton
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1983-10

10.  The low pressure urethra as a factor in failed retropubic urethropexy.

Authors:  P K Sand; L W Bowen; R Panganiban; D R Ostergard
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  When are urodynamics indicated in patients with stress urinary incontinence?

Authors:  Benjamin E Dillon; Philippe E Zimmern
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Are the measurements of water-filled and air-charged catheters the same in urodynamics?

Authors:  G Alessandro Digesu; Alexandros Derpapas; Penny Robshaw; Gopalan Vijaya; Caroline Hendricken; Vik Khullar
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Correlation of maximum urethral closure pressure with Valsalva leak point pressure using air-charged urodynamic catheters.

Authors:  Terry White; Amie Kawasaki; Reneita V Ross; Rony A Adam; Thinh H Duong
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-05-15

Review 4.  Urodynamic studies for management of urinary incontinence in children and adults.

Authors:  Keiran David Clement; Marie Carmela M Lapitan; Muhammad Imran Omar; Cathryn M A Glazener
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-10-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.