Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of maximum cystometric bladder capacity with maximum environmental voided volumes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the study was, to determine whether maximum cystometric capacity accurately reflects the maximum functional bladder volume in women with urinary incontinence. We performed a retrospective chart review involving 85 women between the ages of 22 and 89 with primary complaints of urinary incontinence. The maximum cystometric capacity as determined by cystometry was compared with the maximum environmental voided volumes as recorded in a 24-hour voiding diary, using Pearson's correlation coefficients and pairedt-tests. Patients diagnosed as having a small bladder capacity (<300 ml maximum volume) based on cystometry were also examined with contingency table analysis to determine whether the bladder volumes in the voiding diaries supported the diagnosis of a small bladder. In 85 subjects the average maximum cystometric capacity was 14.7% less than the maximum volume recorded in the voiding diary. The correlation between the maximum cystometric capacity and maximum functional bladder volume wasr=0.473 (P<0.001). However, there was a statistically significant difference between the two volumes by pairedt-test analysis (P=0.006). Using cystometry to diagnose small bladder capacity showed a sensitivity of 62.9% and a specificity of 71.2% when using voiding diary volumes as the criterion standard. The positive predictive value was 51.4% and the negative predictive value was 84.0%. These results suggest that whereas the maximum bladder capacity measured by cystometry correlates with maximum environmental bladder capacity as determined by 24-hour voiding diaries, there is a statistically significant difference. The diagnosis of a small bladder should not be based on office cystometry alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Torrens M, Abrams P. Cystometry.Urol Clin North Am 1979;6:79–85

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wyman J, Choi S, Harkins S et al. The urinary diary in the evaluation of incontinent women: a test-retest analysis.Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:812–817

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Heit M, Brubaker L. Clinical correlates in patients not completing a voiding diary.Int Urogynecol J 1996;7:256–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Diokno AC, Wells TJ, Brink CA. Comparison of self-reported voided volume with cystometric bladder capacity.Urol Neurol Urodyn 1987;137:698–700

    Google Scholar 

  5. Swift SE. Reliability of performing a screening cystometrogram using a fetal monitor for the detection of detrusor instability.Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:708–712

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abrams P, Blavis JG, Stanton SL, Anderson JT. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function.Int Urogynecol J 1990;1:45–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Langer R, Ron-El R, Newman M, Herman A, Caspi E. Detrusor instability following colposuspension for urinary incontinence.Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988;95:607–609

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ouslander J, Leach G, Staskin D et al. Prospective evaluation of an assessment strategy for geriatric urinary incontinence.J Am Geriatr Soc 1989;37:715–724

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cass AS, Ward BD, Markland C. Comparison of slow and rapid fill cystometry using liquid and air.J Urol 1970;104:104–108

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen JK. Urodynamic evaluation. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE, eds. Urogynecology and urodynamics, 4th edn. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1991:116–121

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jensen JK. Urodynamic evaluation. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE, eds. Urogynecology and urodynamics, 4th edn. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1991;115.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Editorial Comment: Although voiding diaries provide a wealth of information regarding daily intake and voiding habits, including episodes of incontinence, they can be difficult to obtain from all patients. The authors question whether a cystometrogram can provide adequate information regarding bladder capacity, and in particular identify low-capacity bladders which would require further evaluation. The answer in their population seems to be no. That this would be the case is not completely surprising, given the artificial environment of the urodynamic laboratory from many standpoints, as enumerated by the authors. The voiding diary should be used to establish functional bladder capacity and cystometry to evaluate bladder sensation, compliance and uncontrolled detrusor activity.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yoon, E., Swift, S. A comparison of maximum cystometric bladder capacity with maximum environmental voided volumes. Int Urogynecol J 9, 78–82 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01982213

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01982213

Keywords

Navigation