Neurourology and urodynamics · 2011
Comparison of air-charged and water-filled urodynamic pressure measurement catheters.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Cooper M A, Fletter P C, Zaszczurynski P J, Damaser M S
Аннотация
AIMS: Catheter systems are utilized to measure pressure for diagnosis of voiding dysfunction. In a clinical setting, patient movement and urodynamic pumps introduce hydrostatic and motion artifacts into measurements. Therefore, complete characterization of a catheter system includes its response to artifacts as well its frequency response. The objective of this study was to compare the response of two disposable clinical catheter systems: water-filled and air-charged, to controlled pressure signals to assess their similarities and differences in pressure transduction.
METHODS: We characterized frequency response using a transient step test, which exposed the catheters to a sudden change in pressure; and a sinusoidal frequency sweep test, which exposed the catheters to a sinusoidal pressure wave from 1 to 30 Hz. The response of the catheters to motion artifacts was tested using a vortex and the response to hydrostatic pressure changes was tested by moving the catheter tips to calibrated heights.
RESULTS: Water-filled catheters acted as an underdamped system, resonating at 10.13 ± 1.03 Hz and attenuating signals at frequencies higher than 19 Hz. They demonstrated significant motion and hydrostatic artifacts. Air-charged catheters acted as an overdamped system and attenuated signals at frequencies higher than 3.02 ± 0.13 Hz. They demonstrated significantly less motion and hydrostatic artifacts than water-filled catheters. The transient step and frequency sweep tests gave comparable results.
CONCLUSIONS: Air-charged and water-filled catheters respond to pressure changes in dramatically different ways. Knowledge of the characteristics of the pressure-measuring system is essential to finding the best match for a specific application.
METHODS: We characterized frequency response using a transient step test, which exposed the catheters to a sudden change in pressure; and a sinusoidal frequency sweep test, which exposed the catheters to a sinusoidal pressure wave from 1 to 30 Hz. The response of the catheters to motion artifacts was tested using a vortex and the response to hydrostatic pressure changes was tested by moving the catheter tips to calibrated heights.
RESULTS: Water-filled catheters acted as an underdamped system, resonating at 10.13 ± 1.03 Hz and attenuating signals at frequencies higher than 19 Hz. They demonstrated significant motion and hydrostatic artifacts. Air-charged catheters acted as an overdamped system and attenuated signals at frequencies higher than 3.02 ± 0.13 Hz. They demonstrated significantly less motion and hydrostatic artifacts than water-filled catheters. The transient step and frequency sweep tests gave comparable results.
CONCLUSIONS: Air-charged and water-filled catheters respond to pressure changes in dramatically different ways. Knowledge of the characteristics of the pressure-measuring system is essential to finding the best match for a specific application.