| Literature DB >> 34257341 |
Kristine Janssen1,2,3, Kangli Deng1,2, Steve J A Majerus1,2,4, Dan Li Lin1,2, Brett Hanzlicek1,2, Robert S Butler5, Carl H van der Vaart3, Margot S Damaser6,7,8.
Abstract
Transurethral and suprapubic catheterization have both been used to test urethral function in rats; however, it is unknown whether these methods affect urethral function or if the order of catheterization affects the results. The aim of this cross-over designed experiment was to compare the effects of catheterization methods and order on leak point pressure (LPP) testing. LPP and simultaneous external urethral sphincter electromyography (EUS EMG) were recorded in anesthetized female virgin Sprague-Dawley rats in a cross-over design to test the effects of transurethral and suprapubic catheterization. There was no significant difference in peak bladder pressure during LPP testing whether measured with a transurethral or suprapubic catheter. There was no significant difference in peak bladder pressure between the first and second catheter insertions. However, peak EMG firing rate, as well as peak EMG amplitude and EMG amplitude difference between peak and baseline were significantly higher after the first catheter insertion compared to the second insertion, regardless of the catheter method. Our results suggest that route of catheterization does not alter urethral function, e.g. create a functional partial outlet obstruction. Either catheterization method could be used for LPP and/or EUS EMG testing in rats.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34257341 PMCID: PMC8277785 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93772-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Experimental design. Rats underwent initial catheterization, followed by leak point pressure (LPP) with simultaneous external urethral sphincter (EUS) electromyography (EMG) testing. After initial transurethral catheterization, the catheter was removed and a suprapubic catheter was placed. After initial suprapubic catheterization, the catheter was shortened and occluded and a transurethral catheter was placed. This was followed by repeated LPP with simultaneous EUS EMG testing.
Figure 2Representative examples of LPP and EMG recording. Both examples represent measurements recorded using PowerLab 8/35 system (LabChart v. 7 software) from one animal each, using either a suprapubic catheter first and a transurethral catheter second (a), or a transurethral catheter first and a suprapubic catheter second (b). One second segments (shaded region) were used to calculate bladder pressure, external urethral sphincter electromyography firing rate and amplitude at baseline and peak. Leak point pressure (LPP) was calculated by subtracting baseline pressure from peak pressure.
Figure 3Bladder pressure during LPP testing. Baseline pressure, peak bladder pressure, and Leak Point Pressure grouped by order of catheterization. Repeated measures ANOVA did not reveal any significant interactions between catheter method and order. Each bar represents mean ± SEM of data from 12 rats.
Figure 4Firing rate of external urethral sphincter electromyography (EUS EMG) during leak point pressure (LPP) testing. EUS EMG firing rate at baseline and peak bladder pressure of LPP testing and the difference between the two grouped by order of catheterization. *Indicates that repeated measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of order on peak measurements (p < 0.05), indicating significant higher firing rate peak after initial catheter insertion, compared to subsequent catheter insertion. Each bar represents mean ± SEM of data from 12 rats.
Figure 5Amplitude of external urethral sphincter electromyography (EUS EMG) amplitude during leak point pressure (LPP) testing. EUS EMG amplitude at baseline and peak bladder pressure of LPP testing and the difference between the two grouped by order of catheterization. * and ** Indicate that repeated measures ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of order on peak and difference between peak and baseline measurements (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01), indicating significantly higher peak amplitude and difference in amplitude between peak and baseline after initial catheter insertion, compared to subsequent catheter insertion. Each bar represents mean ± SEM of data from 12 rats.