Are conventional pressure‐flow measurements dependent upon filled volume?
OBJECTIVE To determine, in a prospective study, whether detrusor pressure (pdet.Qmax) and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) measurements obtained after filling to maximum cystometric capacity (MCC) differ from those obtained with filling restricted to average voided volume (Vvoid), as standard protoc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BJU international 2005-08, Vol.96 (3), p.345-349 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | OBJECTIVE
To determine, in a prospective study, whether detrusor pressure (pdet.Qmax) and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) measurements obtained after filling to maximum cystometric capacity (MCC) differ from those obtained with filling restricted to average voided volume (Vvoid), as standard protocols for pressure flow studies (PFS) mandate bladder filling until the subject has a strong desire to void, which aids standardization but further divorces the test from real‐life experience.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
After calculating the appropriate sample size, 84 patients attending for PFS with an adequately completed 3‐day frequency‐volume chart were recruited. Each underwent two consecutive PFS with filling to MCC and average Vvoid in a random order, and measurements of pdet.Qmax and Qmax were compared. For men, the agreement for a diagnosis of obstruction between the tests was also assessed.
RESULTS
Complete data were obtained from 76 (90%) of the patients, with a mean (range) age of 64 (20–94) years. The mean (sd) difference between MCC and average Vvoid was 134 (113) mL (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1464-4096 1464-410X |
DOI: | 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05629.x |