International urogynecology journal · 2019
Comparison of air-filled and water-filled catheters for use in cystometric assessment.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Sheng Wei, Kirschner-Hermanns Ruth
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To determine whether pressure readings measured with air-filled catheter (AFC) and water-filled catheter (WFC) systems are equivalent during cystometric assessment, especially in case of pressure measurements at Valsalva manoeuvres and coughs.
METHODS: Twenty-five subjects were recruited. The commercially available 7-Fr TDOC AFC, which simultaneously reads water and air pressures in the bladder and rectum, was used to compare filling and voiding data recordings. Data were compared using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman plots and linear correlation methods, respectively.
RESULTS: Pressure readings measured by the two systems showed a good correlation at Valsalva manoeuvres [R2 = 0.988, 0.968 for vesical pressure (Pves) and abdominal pressure (Pabd), respectively] and at coughs (R2 = 0.972, 0.943 for Pves and Pabd, respectively). There was a statistically significant difference between the two different measurement modalities at coughs (p < 0.01), initial resting pressure (p < 0.01) and the maximum pressure at detrusor overactivity (p < 0.01). This indicated that the difference between the two measurement modalities during Valsalva manoeuvres could reach up to 5.2 cmH2O and 8.1 cmH2O in Pves and Pabd measurements, respectively. During coughs, the difference could reach up to 20 cmH2O and 19.5 cmH2O in Pves and Pabd measurements, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Pressure recordings from AFC and WFC systems appear to be interchangeable for some urodynamics parameters such as Pves at Valsalva manoeuvres if the baseline pressure is compensated, but not for fast-changing pressure signals such as coughs. This has to be considered when pressures are being taken with the AFC.
METHODS: Twenty-five subjects were recruited. The commercially available 7-Fr TDOC AFC, which simultaneously reads water and air pressures in the bladder and rectum, was used to compare filling and voiding data recordings. Data were compared using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman plots and linear correlation methods, respectively.
RESULTS: Pressure readings measured by the two systems showed a good correlation at Valsalva manoeuvres [R2 = 0.988, 0.968 for vesical pressure (Pves) and abdominal pressure (Pabd), respectively] and at coughs (R2 = 0.972, 0.943 for Pves and Pabd, respectively). There was a statistically significant difference between the two different measurement modalities at coughs (p < 0.01), initial resting pressure (p < 0.01) and the maximum pressure at detrusor overactivity (p < 0.01). This indicated that the difference between the two measurement modalities during Valsalva manoeuvres could reach up to 5.2 cmH2O and 8.1 cmH2O in Pves and Pabd measurements, respectively. During coughs, the difference could reach up to 20 cmH2O and 19.5 cmH2O in Pves and Pabd measurements, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Pressure recordings from AFC and WFC systems appear to be interchangeable for some urodynamics parameters such as Pves at Valsalva manoeuvres if the baseline pressure is compensated, but not for fast-changing pressure signals such as coughs. This has to be considered when pressures are being taken with the AFC.