Literature DB >> 25224148

Clinical evaluation of a high-fidelity wireless intravaginal pressure sensor.

Anuprita S Arora1, Jennifer A Kruger, David M Budgett, Lynsey M Hayward, Jackie Smalldridge, Poul F Nielsen, Robert S Kirton.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A wireless intravaginal pressure sensor (IVPS) has been developed to quantify abdominal pressure (P(abd)) changes during exercise and activities of daily living to guide post-operative advice given to women. In this pilot study, we aimed to compare IVPS performance, comfort, retention, and acceptability to a standard fluid-filled intrarectal pressure catheter currently used to measure P(abd) during routine urodynamics.
METHODS: A Life-Tech 3-mm urodynamic intrarectal catheter and IVPS were inserted concurrently in volunteers attending a urodynamics clinic. The IVPS was positioned above the levator plate and the intrarectal catheter positioned in routine fashion well above the anal sphincter. Routine urodynamics was undertaken, with women asked to perform star jumps if coughing or Valsalva did not invoke leakage. Subjects rated device comfort using a visual analogue scale (0-10). Repeated measures Bland-Altman analysis determined level of agreement (LOA) between the two devices for peak pressures for each activity.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven women were recruited, 67% of the participants preferred the IVPS, 18% the intrarectal catheter, while 15% had no preference. Mean comfort score was 0.9 ± 1.7 and 2.1 ± 2.6 (p = 0.049) for the IVPS and intrarectal catheter respectively. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated minimal bias for cough and Valsalva, however LOA were wide. Differences were more prominent during star jumps where rapid dynamic pressure changes occurred.
CONCLUSIONS: The IVPS had a higher comfort score and was well retained. The LOA between the two systems was moderate, but the high sampling rate and lower susceptibility to motion artefacts of the IVPS may provide more accurate information that will be important clinically.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25224148     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2500-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  24 in total

1.  Urodynamic features and artefacts.

Authors:  Stephen Hogan; Andrew Gammie; Paul Abrams
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 2.696

2.  Possible harmful effects of high intra-abdominal pressure on the pelvic girdle.

Authors:  Jan Mens; Gilbert Hoek van Dijke; Annelies Pool-Goudzwaard; Victor van der Hulst; Henk Stam
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  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

4.  Normal intraabdominal pressure in healthy adults.

Authors:  William S Cobb; Justin M Burns; Kent W Kercher; Brent D Matthews; H James Norton; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2005-09-02       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  Validity of rectal pressure measurements as indication of intra-abdominal pressure changes during urodynamic evaluation.

Authors:  T A McCarthy
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  A multicentered comparison of measurements obtained with microtip and external water pressure transducers.

Authors:  Andrew F Hundley; Morton B Brown; Linda Brubaker; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Karl Kreder; Peter Lotze; Holly E Richter; Halina Zyczynski; Anne M Weber; Anthony G Visco
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2005-11-12

7.  Comparison of air-charged and water-filled urodynamic pressure measurement catheters.

Authors:  M A Cooper; P C Fletter; P J Zaszczurynski; M S Damaser
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 2.696

8.  Vaginal pressure during lifting, floor exercises, jogging, and use of hydraulic exercise machines.

Authors:  Katharine K O'Dell; Abraham N Morse; Sybil L Crawford; Allison Howard
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-05-22

9.  Are postoperative activity restrictions evidence-based?

Authors:  Robert Guttormson; James Tschirhart; Dennis Boysen; Kurt Martinson
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.565

10.  Development of a novel intra-vaginal transducer with improved dynamic response.

Authors:  Paul J Johnson; Evan M Rosenbluth; Ingrid E Nygaard; Monir K Parikh; Robert W Hitchcock
Journal:  Biomed Microdevices       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.838

View more
  2 in total

1.  The Relationship Between Intra-Abdominal Pressure and Body Acceleration During Exercise.

Authors:  Johanna Day de Gennaro; Claire K de Gennaro; Janet M Shaw; Tomasz J Petelenz; Ingrid E Nygaard; Robert W Hitchcock
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2019 May/Jun       Impact factor: 2.091

Review 2.  Is Physical Activity Good or Bad for the Female Pelvic Floor? A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Kari Bø; Ingrid Elisabeth Nygaard
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 11.136

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.