Literature DB >> 9694135

A comparison of maximum cystometric bladder capacity with maximum environmental voided volumes.

E Yoon1, S Swift.   

Abstract

The aim of the study was, to determine whether maximum cystometric capacity accurately reflects the maximum functional bladder volume in women with urinary incontinence. We performed a retrospective chart review involving 85 women between the ages of 22 and 89 with primary complaints of urinary incontinence. The maximum cystometric capacity as determined by cystometry was compared with the maximum environmental voided volumes as recorded in a 24-hour voiding diary, using Pearson's correlation coefficients and paired t-tests. Patients diagnosed as having a small bladder capacity (< 300 ml maximum volume) based on cystometry were also examined with contingency table analysis to determine whether the bladder volumes in the voiding diaries supported the diagnosis of a small bladder. In 85 subjects the average maximum cystometric capacity was 14.7% less than the maximum volume recorded in the voiding diary. The correlation between the maximum cystometric capacity and maximum functional bladder volume was r = 0.473 (P < 0.001). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the two volumes by paired t-test analysis (P = 0.006). Using cystometry to diagnose small bladder capacity showed a sensitivity of 62.9% and a specificity of 71.2% when using voiding diary volumes as the criterion standard. The positive predictive value was 51.4% and the negative predictive value was 84.0%. These results suggest that whereas the maximum bladder capacity measured by cystometry correlates with maximum environmental bladder capacity as determined by 24-hour voiding diaries, there is a statistically significant difference. The diagnosis of a small bladder should not be based on office cystometry alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9694135     DOI: 10.1007/bf01982213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct


  8 in total

1.  The urinary diary in evaluation of incontinent women: a test-retest analysis.

Authors:  J F Wyman; S C Choi; S W Harkins; M S Wilson; J A Fantl
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Cystometry.

Authors:  M Torrens; P Abrams
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  1979-02       Impact factor: 2.241

3.  Comparison of slow and rapid fill cystometry using liquid and air.

Authors:  A S Cass; B D Ward; C Markland
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1970-07       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  The reliability of performing a screening cystometrogram using a fetal monitoring device for the detection of detrusor instability.

Authors:  S E Swift
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Clinical correlates in patients not completing a voiding diary.

Authors:  M Heit; L Brubaker
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  1996

6.  Comparison of self-reported voided volume with cystometric bladder capacity.

Authors:  A C Diokno; T J Wells; C A Brink
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Prospective evaluation of an assessment strategy for geriatric urinary incontinence.

Authors:  J Ouslander; G Leach; D Staskin; S Abelson; J Blaustein; L Morishita; S Raz
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 5.562

8.  Detrusor instability following colposuspension for urinary stress incontinence.

Authors:  R Langer; R Ron-el; M Newman; A Herman; E Caspi
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1988-06
  8 in total
  2 in total

1.  Artifacts and abnormal findings may limit the use of asymptomatic volunteers as controls for studies of multichannel urodynamics.

Authors:  Natalie R Swavely; John E Speich; Adam P Klausner
Journal:  Minerva Urol Nephrol       Date:  2020-07-07

2.  Evaluation of bladder diary parameters based on correlation with the volume at strong desire to void in filling cystometry.

Authors:  Sheng-Mou Hsiao; Chin-Fen Hsiao; Chi-Hau Chen; Ting-Chen Chang; Wen-Yih Wu; Ho-Hsiung Lin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.