AIMS: The objective of this study was to test a custom device aimed at increasing repeatability of abdominal leak point pressure (LPP) measurements in rodents. METHODS: The device consisted of a soft-tipped force applicator with a force sensor which was moved in the vertical direction by a linear actuator, laser crosshairs for accurate positioning, and a hand-held wired remote control system. One expert and two novice experimenters acquired LPP measurements using manual and device methods by applying a gradually increasing force with the finger or the device, respectively, until a leak was visually observed at the urethral meatus. The device was tested at fast, medium, and slow speeds. A leak sensor was also tested to determine presence of a leak and reaction time of the user. The change in bladder pressure due to the externally applied force (LPP) was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean LPP value when compared across experiments (expert, novice), method (manual, device), or speeds. The pooled variance of LPP was significantly decreased (P < 0.05) compared to the manual method when using the device at medium speed; however the slower speed showed no further improvement over the medium speed. The wet sensor detected leaks 385 +/- 187 msec earlier than users' reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the device can decrease variability of the experiment but does not alter mean values. Reaction time, inherent in both the manual and device methods, has the potential for a significant impact on LPP outcomes. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
AIMS: The objective of this study was to test a custom device aimed at increasing repeatability of abdominal leak point pressure (LPP) measurements in rodents. METHODS: The device consisted of a soft-tipped force applicator with a force sensor which was moved in the vertical direction by a linear actuator, laser crosshairs for accurate positioning, and a hand-held wired remote control system. One expert and two novice experimenters acquired LPP measurements using manual and device methods by applying a gradually increasing force with the finger or the device, respectively, until a leak was visually observed at the urethral meatus. The device was tested at fast, medium, and slow speeds. A leak sensor was also tested to determine presence of a leak and reaction time of the user. The change in bladder pressure due to the externally applied force (LPP) was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean LPP value when compared across experiments (expert, novice), method (manual, device), or speeds. The pooled variance of LPP was significantly decreased (P < 0.05) compared to the manual method when using the device at medium speed; however the slower speed showed no further improvement over the medium speed. The wet sensor detected leaks 385 +/- 187 msec earlier than users' reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the device can decrease variability of the experiment but does not alter mean values. Reaction time, inherent in both the manual and device methods, has the potential for a significant impact on LPP outcomes. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip Van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Urology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: H Q Pan; J M Kerns; D L Lin; S Liu; N Esparza; M S Damaser Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2007-01-04 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Larissa V Rodríguez; Shinhong Chen; Gregory S Jack; Fernando de Almeida; Kyo Won Lee; Rong Zhang Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2005-01-13 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Hui Q Pan; Dan L Lin; Christopher Strauch; Robert S Butler; Vincent M Monnier; Firouz Daneshgari; Margot S Damaser Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2010-09-29
Authors: James E Steward; Jessica D Clemons; Paul J Zaszczurynski; Robert S Butler; Margot S Damaser; Hai-Hong Jiang Journal: World J Urol Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 4.226