OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the accuracy, reliability, and clinical utility of the noninvasive determination of bladder volume using an automated, compact three-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound device. METHODS: We prospectively tested 249 adult outpatients for accuracy (n = 182), by comparing scan versus catheter volumes, or reliability (n = 67), by comparing the scan readings of two independent observers. Two models of the bladder scan device were tested (BVI-2500, 1994 and 1995 models). RESULTS: Scan and catheter volumes were correlated (y = 1.02x + 12.6, R2 = 0.90, P < 0.001) across a range of zero to 1015 cc, regardless of which machine model was used. Scan volume underestimated catheter volume by an average of 10 cc in men and 20 cc in women. If a scan-predicted volume of 100 cc or greater were used as a cutpoint for clinical importance, the device exhibited a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 91%, and an overall accuracy of 94%. These results were not affected by age, gender, height, weight, diagnosis, uterine presence/prostate size, or user experience. The two observers, one a graduate physician and the other a college student, achieved essentially the same volume determinations (y = 0.96x + 0.13, R2 = 0.90, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Volume determinations obtained with the bladder scan device are accurate and reliable in adult outpatients. A special technician is not required. These results may be attributable to use of automated planimetry and 3-D volumetry, rather than a fixed geometric formula, to custom measure each bladder shape.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the accuracy, reliability, and clinical utility of the noninvasive determination of bladder volume using an automated, compact three-dimensional (3-D) ultrasound device. METHODS: We prospectively tested 249 adult outpatients for accuracy (n = 182), by comparing scan versus catheter volumes, or reliability (n = 67), by comparing the scan readings of two independent observers. Two models of the bladder scan device were tested (BVI-2500, 1994 and 1995 models). RESULTS: Scan and catheter volumes were correlated (y = 1.02x + 12.6, R2 = 0.90, P < 0.001) across a range of zero to 1015 cc, regardless of which machine model was used. Scan volume underestimated catheter volume by an average of 10 cc in men and 20 cc in women. If a scan-predicted volume of 100 cc or greater were used as a cutpoint for clinical importance, the device exhibited a sensitivity of 97%, a specificity of 91%, and an overall accuracy of 94%. These results were not affected by age, gender, height, weight, diagnosis, uterine presence/prostate size, or user experience. The two observers, one a graduate physician and the other a college student, achieved essentially the same volume determinations (y = 0.96x + 0.13, R2 = 0.90, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Volume determinations obtained with the bladder scan device are accurate and reliable in adult outpatients. A special technician is not required. These results may be attributable to use of automated planimetry and 3-D volumetry, rather than a fixed geometric formula, to custom measure each bladder shape.
Authors: Frank F Tu; Aliza E Epstein; Kristen E Pozolo; Debra L Sexton; Alexandra I Melnyk; Kevin M Hellman Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Jeong Kyun Yeo; Hun Choi; Jae Hyun Bae; Jae Heon Kim; Seong Ok Yang; Chul Young Oh; Young Sam Cho; Kyoung Woo Kim; Hyung Ji Kim Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2016-01-11
Authors: Tammo A Brouwer; Charina van den Boogaard; Eric N van Roon; Cor J Kalkman; Nic Veeger Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: John Graham Theisen; Nicolette E Deveneau; Anu Agrawal; Casey Kinman; Jeremy Gaskins; Kate Meriwether; Sean L Francis Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2019 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.091