Pressure‐flow studies in the diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction: a study comparing suprapubic and transurethral techniques

Abstract

Objective To compare suprapubic and transurethral 60% of men were in the same LPURR class with either method. Using the transurethral method, 26% of methods of measuring intravesical pressure in a group of men undergoing investigation for lower urinary patients increased the LPURR class by one and 6% by two classes. Using the Abrams-GriÃths nomogram, tract symptoms (LUTS), to identify which urodynamic variables are aÂected by the presence of an urethral 17% moved from a classification of equivocal to obstructed and 3% from unobstructed to equivocal. catheter during the voiding phase, and consequently whether there is any change in the grading of bladder Using the criterion of a value of URA >29, 57% were obstructed using the suprapubic and 74% using the outflow obstruction (BOO) using the commonly recognised grading systems.transurethral method. Conclusion According to the method used, there were Patients and methods Thirty-five men with LUTS underwent both suprapubic and transurethral pressure-flow diÂerences in the classification of obstruction between the suprapubic and transurethral routes; transurethral studies during a single session. Standard pressure flow variables were measured in all patients with both studies tended to indicate greater obstruction. The interpretation of urodynamic studies should take into methods, enabling calculation of obstruction using the commonly used grading systems, i.e. the Abramsaccount the technique used and where the route is transurethral, the smallest catheter available should GriÃth number, linear passive urethral resistance ratio (LPURR) and urethral resistance algorithm (URA).be used.

Pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a study comparing suprapubic and transurethral methods

“…There were significant differences between the mean values of the two methods for Qmax, Pdet, Qmax, [8]. Indeed, pressure-flow analysis has been generally accepted as the gold standard in measuring outcome and certainly in quantifying the grade of BOO [3,5], and it has been verified significant for both diagnosis before surgical treatment and evaluation after operation, such as before and after transurethral resection of prostate [9,10]. Therefore, it is very important to get precise results from the examination.…”

“…During pressure-flow studies intravesical pressure can be measured using either transurethral or suprapubic lines. The transurethral method is generally used, but the suprapubic route has the theoretical advantage of leaving the urethra untouched during the measurements and, therefore, might preclude any artifacts produced by instrumentation [5].…”

Free Uroflow Versus Pressure-Flow Urodynamic Outcomes: Does the Transurethral Catheter Cause a Measurement Artifact?

“…Walker et al [13] compared a suprapubic catheter with a transurethral catheter for pressureflow studies and concluded that transurethral catheters created a statistically significant increase in the degree of obstruction.…”

A combined urodynamic and electrophysiological study of diabetic cystopathy

“…Free uro£owometry, measurement of residual urine, ¢lling cystometry at a rate of 30 ml/min, and pressure/ £ow study of micturition were included in the study. During the latter, the urethra was catheter-free and the intravesical pressure recorded via a ¢ne suprapubic catheter (18G epidural catheter) in order to have pressure-£ow studies without any arti¢cial outlet obstruction [Walker et al, 1997].…”