BJU international · 2005
Are conventional pressure-flow measurements dependent upon filled volume?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sahadevan Kanagasabai, Leonard Ann S, Pickard Robert S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine, in a prospective study, whether detrusor pressure (p(det.Qmax)) and maximum urinary flow rate (Q(max)) measurements obtained after filling to maximum cystometric capacity (MCC) differ from those obtained with filling restricted to average voided volume (V(void)), 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 V(void) in a random order, and measurements of p(det.Qmax) and Q(max) 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 V(void) was 134 (113) mL (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between estimates of Q(max), at - 0.1 (3) mL/s (P = 0.75), and of p(det.Qmax), at - 1 (13) cmH(2)O (P = 0.91), obtained within each patient. For men there was 91% agreement (32 of 35) in the classification of obstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Restriction of filling to the average V(void) during PFS allows a closer approximation to normal voiding and results in no clinically relevant change to the value of standard pressure-flow measurements or alters individual classification of obstruction.
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 V(void) in a random order, and measurements of p(det.Qmax) and Q(max) 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 V(void) was 134 (113) mL (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences between estimates of Q(max), at - 0.1 (3) mL/s (P = 0.75), and of p(det.Qmax), at - 1 (13) cmH(2)O (P = 0.91), obtained within each patient. For men there was 91% agreement (32 of 35) in the classification of obstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: Restriction of filling to the average V(void) during PFS allows a closer approximation to normal voiding and results in no clinically relevant change to the value of standard pressure-flow measurements or alters individual classification of obstruction.