International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 400–406 | Cite as

A multicentered comparison of measurements obtained with microtip and external water pressure transducers

  • Andrew F. Hundley
  • Morton B. Brown
  • Linda Brubaker
  • Geoffrey W. Cundiff
  • Karl Kreder
  • Peter Lotze
  • Holly E. Richter
  • Halina Zyczynski
  • Anne M. Weber
  • Anthony G. Visco
Original Article

Abstract

This study compared simultaneous intravesical pressure readings obtained with catheter-mounted microtip transducers and external water pressure transducer catheters during filling cystometry. Women undergoing multichannel urodynamic testing were randomly assigned to one of three groups: two microtip catheters, two external water pressure transducer catheters, or one of each type. Intravesical pressure was measured simultaneously for each transducer combination in each subject for minimal and maximal Valsalva effort and minimal, moderate, and maximal cough effort at two sequential bladder volumes (150 and 300 ml). Paired t tests were used to compare the means of the intravesical pressure obtained by the two types of catheters. The largest mean differences were observed when comparing microtip and water pressure transducers. Correlations of maximum pressure were consistently high between two microtip transducers and two water pressure transducers but lower for the microtip–water combination. Excellent reproducibility was demonstrated with transducers of similar types for intravesical pressures recorded during Valsalva and cough in women without prolapse. However, considerable variability was seen in pressures recorded by different transducers, particularly dependent on the water catheter manufacturer, indicating that intravesical pressure recordings from microtip and water-based systems are not interchangeable.

Keywords

Microtip Pressure transducer Cough pressure Valsalva Correlation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Robert Park, Chairman of the Steering Committee for the PFDN.

This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U01 HD41249, U10 HD41268, U10 HD41248, U10 HD41250, U10 HD41261, U10 HD41263, U10 HD41269, and U10 HD41267).

References

  1. 1.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:116–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bump RC, Elser DM, Theofrastous JP, McClish DK (1995) Valsalva leak point pressures in women with genuine stress incontinence: reproducibility, effect of catheter caliber, and correlations with other measures of urethral resistance. Continence Program for Women Research Group. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173:551–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Swift SE, Utrie JW (1996) The need for standardization of the Valsalva leak-point pressure. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 7:227–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swift SE, Yoon EA (1999) Test–retest reliability of the cough stress test in the evaluation of urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 94:99–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miklos JR, Sze EH, Karram MM (1995) A critical appraisal of the methods of measuring leak-point pressures in women with stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 86:349–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang AC, Chen MC (2002) A comparison of urethral pressure profilometry using microtip and double-lumen perfusion catheters in women with genuine stress incontinence. BJOG 109:322–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hundley AF, Visco AG (2004) Comparison of measurements obtained with microtip and external water pressure transducers. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:276–280PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rowan D, James ED, Kramer AE, Sterling AM, Suhel PF (1987) Urodynamic equipment: technical aspects. Produced by the International Continence Society Working Party on Urodynamic Equipment. J Med Eng Technol 11:57–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew F. Hundley
    • 1
  • Morton B. Brown
    • 2
  • Linda Brubaker
    • 3
  • Geoffrey W. Cundiff
    • 4
  • Karl Kreder
    • 5
  • Peter Lotze
    • 6
  • Holly E. Richter
    • 7
  • Halina Zyczynski
    • 8
  • Anne M. Weber
    • 9
  • Anthony G. Visco
    • 1
    • 10
  1. 1.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Pelvic Floor Disorders Network Data Coordinating CenterUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryLoyola UniversityMaywoodUSA
  4. 4.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryJohns Hopkins Bayview Medical CenterBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  6. 6.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  7. 7.University of Alabama at Birmingham Continence CenterBirminghamUSA
  8. 8.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryMagee Women’s HospitalPittsburghUSA
  9. 9.National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentBethesdaUSA
  10. 10.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations