2175 THE EFFECT OF A 6FR CATHETER ON PRESSURE-FLOW STUDIES IN WOMEN: ARE THEY REALLY OBSTRUCTIVE?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Urodynamic Testing1 Apr 20112175 THE EFFECT OF A 6FR CATHETER ON PRESSURE-FLOW STUDIES IN WOMEN: ARE THEY REALLY OBSTRUCTIVE? Patrick Richard, Nydia Icaza Ordonez, and Le Mai Tu Patrick RichardPatrick Richard Sherbrooke, Canada More articles by this author , Nydia Icaza OrdonezNydia Icaza Ordonez Sherbrooke, Canada More articles by this author , and Le Mai TuLe Mai Tu Sherbrooke, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.2412AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Urodynamic studies (UDS) allow for direct assessment of the lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The pressure-flow studies are one of the most important parameters evaluated during the UDS in order to determine if the patient is suffering from bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). There is currently no consensus on the definition of BOO in women but UDS criteria such as a maximal flow rate (Qmax) ≤ 15mL/s and a PdetQmax ≥ 20cm H2O is generally used. However, the use of transurethral catheters during the pressure-flow studies has brought up concerns about its potential obstructive nature which could result in false positive BOO diagnosis. Thus, the objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of a 6Fr transurethral catheter on pressure-flow studies and to evaluate whether it might potentially contributes to the obstruction. METHODS This is a retrospective study of 615 women referred for an evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms and who underwent an urodynamic study. Non invasive free-flow uroflowmetry (UFM) was performed before every urodynamic studies and postvoiding residual urine volume (PVR) was recorded. Cystometrography (CMG) was then performed using a 6 Fr double lumen transurethral and PVR recorded at the end of the procedure. RESULTS The mean age of the population was 62±13 years old. The Qmax was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the free-flow studies [20.0mL/s (range 13.7–28.5)] than in the pressure-flow studies [17.5mL/s (range 11.8–25.2). This difference becomes even greater(−6mL/s) if we analyze only the patients (n=155) who voided a volume varying by less than 20% between the free and pressure-flow studies. Furthermore, 132 women (18%) in the overall population would have been misinterpreted as having an obstructive Qmax while the same can be said for 40 women (26%) in the sub-analyzed group if only the pressure-flow study would have been performed. CONCLUSIONS This study shed the light on how important is the flow-free study in the interpretation of the UDS. We believe that it should be performed in all patients before pressure-flow study because of the potential obstructive nature of the 6Fr catheters which could results in an erroneous diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e871-e872 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Patrick Richard Sherbrooke, Canada More articles by this author Nydia Icaza Ordonez Sherbrooke, Canada More articles by this author Le Mai Tu Sherbrooke, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,047 | 0,014 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».