OBJECTIVE: Urethral pressure reflectometry (UPR) has shown to be superior in evaluating the squeeze function compared to urethral pressure profilometry. The conventional UPR measurement (step method) required up to 15 squeezes to provide one measure of the squeezing opening pressure and one measure of the squeezing elastance. The UPR technique was modified (so the examination last 7 s), requiring only one squeeze for the measurement to be made (continuous method). The aims of the study were to compare the UPR parameters measured during squeezing by the continuous method with measurements made by the step method and to measure the reproducibility of the continuous method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 33 women were included (eight healthy and 25 with urodynamically proven stress urinary incontinence). The women were measured twice with the step method followed by five measurements with the continuous method. RESULTS: No significant difference was seen between the mean squeezing opening pressures measured with the two methods. The squeezing elastance was significantly higher (p < 0.00001) with the continuous method (2.7 cmH₂O/mm²) than with the step method (1.9 cmH₂O/mm²). The coefficient of variation (CV) was 6.5% for the opening pressure measured with the continuous method and 14.8% for the squeezing elastance. CONCLUSIONS: A new method for performing UPR measurements during squeezing has been described. With the new method a UPR measurement can be conducted during only one squeeze. The squeezing opening pressure is the same while the squeezing elastance is higher with the new method compared with the conventional method.
OBJECTIVE: Urethral pressure reflectometry (UPR) has shown to be superior in evaluating the squeeze function compared to urethral pressure profilometry. The conventional UPR measurement (step method) required up to 15 squeezes to provide one measure of the squeezing opening pressure and one measure of the squeezing elastance. The UPR technique was modified (so the examination last 7 s), requiring only one squeeze for the measurement to be made (continuous method). The aims of the study were to compare the UPR parameters measured during squeezing by the continuous method with measurements made by the step method and to measure the reproducibility of the continuous method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 33 women were included (eight healthy and 25 with urodynamically proven stress urinary incontinence). The women were measured twice with the step method followed by five measurements with the continuous method. RESULTS: No significant difference was seen between the mean squeezing opening pressures measured with the two methods. The squeezing elastance was significantly higher (p < 0.00001) with the continuous method (2.7 cmH₂O/mm²) than with the step method (1.9 cmH₂O/mm²). The coefficient of variation (CV) was 6.5% for the opening pressure measured with the continuous method and 14.8% for the squeezing elastance. CONCLUSIONS: A new method for performing UPR measurements during squeezing has been described. With the new method a UPR measurement can be conducted during only one squeeze. The squeezing opening pressure is the same while the squeezing elastance is higher with the new method compared with the conventional method.