Accuracy of methods for urinary detection in women with stress urinary incontinence

3Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: We assessed the accuracy of urinary detection by visualization compared with a method using the urethral channel of a transurethral, three-channel urodynamic catheter. Materials and Methods: This was a case series of 52 patients presenting with stress urinary incontinence over 2 years. Patients underwent video-urodynamic studies in both the supine and the erect positions by use of two techniques for measuring leak point pressure (LPP) by one examiner. LPP was determined as the intravesical pressure simultaneous to the starting point of urethral pressure changes through the urethral channel of a urodynamic catheter (LPP-ure) and then by visualization (LPP-vis) during different events. We also measured the time related to the provocations and the time to mark the leakage on the urodynamic machine by the examiner. Results: The LPP-ure values (cough supine: 42.1±18.7, cough erect: 42.1±21.8, Valsalva supine: 42.2±23.3, Valsalva erect: 41.0±22.6 cmH 2O) were significantly lower than the LPP-vis values (89.9±29.4, 97.4±30.4, 70.6±25.2, and 74.4±32.6 cmH2O, respectively, all p<0.001). Whereas the actual leakages happened during the pressure increases, urodynamic recording by visualization was done after those increases had finished. Conclusions: The use of visualization as a urinary detection method entails potential errors that cannot be adjusted for on that time scale. Our results emphasize the need to standardize the methodologies used for urinary leakage detection, because this measurement is closely related to the accuracy of measurement of leak point pressure. © The Korean Urological Association, 2010.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jung, H. D., Lee, H. J., Chung, Y. G., Seong, D. H., Yoon, S. M., & Lee, T. (2010). Accuracy of methods for urinary detection in women with stress urinary incontinence. Korean Journal of Urology, 51(8), 537–543. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2010.51.8.537

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free