Performance analysis of the T‐DOC® air‐charged catheters: An alternate technology for urodynamics

Aims Urodynamics (UDS) is widely used for the diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Air‐Charged catheters (ACC), one of the newer technologies for UDS pressure recording, has been adopted in growing numbers around the world for the past 15 years. Currently, there is a lack of published studi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurourology and urodynamics 2018-02, Vol.37 (2), p.619-625
Hauptverfasser: Couri, Bruna M., Bitzos, Stephanie, Bhardwaj, Deepak, Lockhart, Emily, Yue, Andy, Goping, Ing
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 625
container_issue 2
container_start_page 619
container_title Neurourology and urodynamics
container_volume 37
creator Couri, Bruna M.
Bitzos, Stephanie
Bhardwaj, Deepak
Lockhart, Emily
Yue, Andy
Goping, Ing
description Aims Urodynamics (UDS) is widely used for the diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Air‐Charged catheters (ACC), one of the newer technologies for UDS pressure recording, has been adopted in growing numbers around the world for the past 15 years. Currently, there is a lack of published studies characterizing specific performance of the ACC. Since linearity, hysteresis, pressure drift, and frequency response are important components in characterizing accuracy for catheter‐manometer systems; this study aimed to assess these four aspects in ACC. Methods A total of 180 T‐DOC® ACC were used in three different laboratory settings to assess pressure linearity and hysteresis (15 dual‐sensor vesical and urethral and 30 single‐sensor abdominal), pressure drift over 2 h (115 single‐sensor), and frequency response (20 single‐sensor). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Results ACC showed linearity of 0.99 ± 0.01, 0.99 ± 0.01, and 1.01 ± 0.01; and hysteresis of 0.57 ± 0.3%, 0.76 ± 0.48%, and 1 ± 0.89% for the abdominal, vesical, and urethral sensors, respectively. A pressure drift of 2.2 ± 1.4% at 1 h and 4.4 ± 2.5% at 2 h were observed when compared to baseline pressures. The catheters did not show any amplification factor during the sweep from 1 to 30 Hz, and recorded signals up to 5 Hz attenuating higher frequency signals. Conclusions In this study the T‐DOC® ACC showed a linear performance with minimal hysteresis associated with acceptable pressure drift, and adequate frequency response to capture clinically relevant pressures. The accurate results observed in this study suggest that these catheters are technically suitable to be used as a measuring instrument for UDS.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/nau.23342
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1920194394</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1920194394</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3602-36e2eeb1e14ab6aefa304bedf5a80f384b4d1e7ddef1a99b2d9192da2e2c18673</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtOG0EQQFsRKBgni1wA9ZIsxvTP0zPsLANJJCtkYa9HNd3VeKL5mO4ZodnlCJyEQ3CUnIRObNghlVQl1dNbPEK-cDbjjImLFoaZkFKJD2TC54Ilqdb6iEyYljIRKtUn5DSE34yxTKr8IzkRmeZzrvSEuF_oXecbaA1SaKEeQxVo52i_Rbr---fx6nb5_ESh8vE2W_B3aKmB-O3Rh0u6aCnU8WyhR9qj2bZd3d2NNDrp4Ds7ttBUJnwixw7qgJ8Pe0o2N9fr5fdkdfvtx3KxSoxMmUhkigKx5MgVlCmgA8lUidbNIWNOZqpUlqO2Fh2HPC-FzXkuLAgUhmepllNyvvfufHc_YOiLpgoG6xpa7IZQRJrxXMk4U_J1jxrfheDRFTtfNeDHgrPiX9YiZi3-Z43s2UE7lA3aN_K1YwQu9sBDVeP4vqn4udjslS9OeIWz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1920194394</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Performance analysis of the T‐DOC® air‐charged catheters: An alternate technology for urodynamics</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Couri, Bruna M. ; Bitzos, Stephanie ; Bhardwaj, Deepak ; Lockhart, Emily ; Yue, Andy ; Goping, Ing</creator><creatorcontrib>Couri, Bruna M. ; Bitzos, Stephanie ; Bhardwaj, Deepak ; Lockhart, Emily ; Yue, Andy ; Goping, Ing</creatorcontrib><description>Aims Urodynamics (UDS) is widely used for the diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Air‐Charged catheters (ACC), one of the newer technologies for UDS pressure recording, has been adopted in growing numbers around the world for the past 15 years. Currently, there is a lack of published studies characterizing specific performance of the ACC. Since linearity, hysteresis, pressure drift, and frequency response are important components in characterizing accuracy for catheter‐manometer systems; this study aimed to assess these four aspects in ACC. Methods A total of 180 T‐DOC® ACC were used in three different laboratory settings to assess pressure linearity and hysteresis (15 dual‐sensor vesical and urethral and 30 single‐sensor abdominal), pressure drift over 2 h (115 single‐sensor), and frequency response (20 single‐sensor). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Results ACC showed linearity of 0.99 ± 0.01, 0.99 ± 0.01, and 1.01 ± 0.01; and hysteresis of 0.57 ± 0.3%, 0.76 ± 0.48%, and 1 ± 0.89% for the abdominal, vesical, and urethral sensors, respectively. A pressure drift of 2.2 ± 1.4% at 1 h and 4.4 ± 2.5% at 2 h were observed when compared to baseline pressures. The catheters did not show any amplification factor during the sweep from 1 to 30 Hz, and recorded signals up to 5 Hz attenuating higher frequency signals. Conclusions In this study the T‐DOC® ACC showed a linear performance with minimal hysteresis associated with acceptable pressure drift, and adequate frequency response to capture clinically relevant pressures. The accurate results observed in this study suggest that these catheters are technically suitable to be used as a measuring instrument for UDS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0733-2467</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6777</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/nau.23342</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28715147</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>air‐charged catheter ; air‐filled catheter ; frequency response ; pressure measurement ; T‐DOC ; urodynamics</subject><ispartof>Neurourology and urodynamics, 2018-02, Vol.37 (2), p.619-625</ispartof><rights>2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3602-36e2eeb1e14ab6aefa304bedf5a80f384b4d1e7ddef1a99b2d9192da2e2c18673</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3602-36e2eeb1e14ab6aefa304bedf5a80f384b4d1e7ddef1a99b2d9192da2e2c18673</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4021-6669</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fnau.23342$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fnau.23342$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28715147$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Couri, Bruna M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bitzos, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhardwaj, Deepak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lockhart, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yue, Andy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goping, Ing</creatorcontrib><title>Performance analysis of the T‐DOC® air‐charged catheters: An alternate technology for urodynamics</title><title>Neurourology and urodynamics</title><addtitle>Neurourol Urodyn</addtitle><description>Aims Urodynamics (UDS) is widely used for the diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Air‐Charged catheters (ACC), one of the newer technologies for UDS pressure recording, has been adopted in growing numbers around the world for the past 15 years. Currently, there is a lack of published studies characterizing specific performance of the ACC. Since linearity, hysteresis, pressure drift, and frequency response are important components in characterizing accuracy for catheter‐manometer systems; this study aimed to assess these four aspects in ACC. Methods A total of 180 T‐DOC® ACC were used in three different laboratory settings to assess pressure linearity and hysteresis (15 dual‐sensor vesical and urethral and 30 single‐sensor abdominal), pressure drift over 2 h (115 single‐sensor), and frequency response (20 single‐sensor). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Results ACC showed linearity of 0.99 ± 0.01, 0.99 ± 0.01, and 1.01 ± 0.01; and hysteresis of 0.57 ± 0.3%, 0.76 ± 0.48%, and 1 ± 0.89% for the abdominal, vesical, and urethral sensors, respectively. A pressure drift of 2.2 ± 1.4% at 1 h and 4.4 ± 2.5% at 2 h were observed when compared to baseline pressures. The catheters did not show any amplification factor during the sweep from 1 to 30 Hz, and recorded signals up to 5 Hz attenuating higher frequency signals. Conclusions In this study the T‐DOC® ACC showed a linear performance with minimal hysteresis associated with acceptable pressure drift, and adequate frequency response to capture clinically relevant pressures. The accurate results observed in this study suggest that these catheters are technically suitable to be used as a measuring instrument for UDS.</description><subject>air‐charged catheter</subject><subject>air‐filled catheter</subject><subject>frequency response</subject><subject>pressure measurement</subject><subject>T‐DOC</subject><subject>urodynamics</subject><issn>0733-2467</issn><issn>1520-6777</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtOG0EQQFsRKBgni1wA9ZIsxvTP0zPsLANJJCtkYa9HNd3VeKL5mO4ZodnlCJyEQ3CUnIRObNghlVQl1dNbPEK-cDbjjImLFoaZkFKJD2TC54Ilqdb6iEyYljIRKtUn5DSE34yxTKr8IzkRmeZzrvSEuF_oXecbaA1SaKEeQxVo52i_Rbr---fx6nb5_ESh8vE2W_B3aKmB-O3Rh0u6aCnU8WyhR9qj2bZd3d2NNDrp4Ds7ttBUJnwixw7qgJ8Pe0o2N9fr5fdkdfvtx3KxSoxMmUhkigKx5MgVlCmgA8lUidbNIWNOZqpUlqO2Fh2HPC-FzXkuLAgUhmepllNyvvfufHc_YOiLpgoG6xpa7IZQRJrxXMk4U_J1jxrfheDRFTtfNeDHgrPiX9YiZi3-Z43s2UE7lA3aN_K1YwQu9sBDVeP4vqn4udjslS9OeIWz</recordid><startdate>201802</startdate><enddate>201802</enddate><creator>Couri, Bruna M.</creator><creator>Bitzos, Stephanie</creator><creator>Bhardwaj, Deepak</creator><creator>Lockhart, Emily</creator><creator>Yue, Andy</creator><creator>Goping, Ing</creator><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4021-6669</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201802</creationdate><title>Performance analysis of the T‐DOC® air‐charged catheters: An alternate technology for urodynamics</title><author>Couri, Bruna M. ; Bitzos, Stephanie ; Bhardwaj, Deepak ; Lockhart, Emily ; Yue, Andy ; Goping, Ing</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3602-36e2eeb1e14ab6aefa304bedf5a80f384b4d1e7ddef1a99b2d9192da2e2c18673</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>air‐charged catheter</topic><topic>air‐filled catheter</topic><topic>frequency response</topic><topic>pressure measurement</topic><topic>T‐DOC</topic><topic>urodynamics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Couri, Bruna M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bitzos, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhardwaj, Deepak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lockhart, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yue, Andy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goping, Ing</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neurourology and urodynamics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Couri, Bruna M.</au><au>Bitzos, Stephanie</au><au>Bhardwaj, Deepak</au><au>Lockhart, Emily</au><au>Yue, Andy</au><au>Goping, Ing</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Performance analysis of the T‐DOC® air‐charged catheters: An alternate technology for urodynamics</atitle><jtitle>Neurourology and urodynamics</jtitle><addtitle>Neurourol Urodyn</addtitle><date>2018-02</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>619</spage><epage>625</epage><pages>619-625</pages><issn>0733-2467</issn><eissn>1520-6777</eissn><abstract>Aims Urodynamics (UDS) is widely used for the diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Air‐Charged catheters (ACC), one of the newer technologies for UDS pressure recording, has been adopted in growing numbers around the world for the past 15 years. Currently, there is a lack of published studies characterizing specific performance of the ACC. Since linearity, hysteresis, pressure drift, and frequency response are important components in characterizing accuracy for catheter‐manometer systems; this study aimed to assess these four aspects in ACC. Methods A total of 180 T‐DOC® ACC were used in three different laboratory settings to assess pressure linearity and hysteresis (15 dual‐sensor vesical and urethral and 30 single‐sensor abdominal), pressure drift over 2 h (115 single‐sensor), and frequency response (20 single‐sensor). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Results ACC showed linearity of 0.99 ± 0.01, 0.99 ± 0.01, and 1.01 ± 0.01; and hysteresis of 0.57 ± 0.3%, 0.76 ± 0.48%, and 1 ± 0.89% for the abdominal, vesical, and urethral sensors, respectively. A pressure drift of 2.2 ± 1.4% at 1 h and 4.4 ± 2.5% at 2 h were observed when compared to baseline pressures. The catheters did not show any amplification factor during the sweep from 1 to 30 Hz, and recorded signals up to 5 Hz attenuating higher frequency signals. Conclusions In this study the T‐DOC® ACC showed a linear performance with minimal hysteresis associated with acceptable pressure drift, and adequate frequency response to capture clinically relevant pressures. The accurate results observed in this study suggest that these catheters are technically suitable to be used as a measuring instrument for UDS.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>28715147</pmid><doi>10.1002/nau.23342</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4021-6669</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0733-2467
ispartof Neurourology and urodynamics, 2018-02, Vol.37 (2), p.619-625
issn 0733-2467
1520-6777
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1920194394
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects air‐charged catheter
air‐filled catheter
frequency response
pressure measurement
T‐DOC
urodynamics
title Performance analysis of the T‐DOC® air‐charged catheters: An alternate technology for urodynamics
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T13%3A26%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Performance%20analysis%20of%20the%20T%E2%80%90DOC%C2%AE%20air%E2%80%90charged%20catheters:%20An%20alternate%20technology%20for%20urodynamics&rft.jtitle=Neurourology%20and%20urodynamics&rft.au=Couri,%20Bruna%20M.&rft.date=2018-02&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=619&rft.epage=625&rft.pages=619-625&rft.issn=0733-2467&rft.eissn=1520-6777&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/nau.23342&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1920194394%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1920194394&rft_id=info:pmid/28715147&rfr_iscdi=true