Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 12, pp 2061–2067 | Cite as

Comparison of air-filled and water-filled catheters for use in cystometric assessment

  • Wei ShengEmail author
  • Ruth Kirschner-Hermanns
Original Article
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To determine whether pressure readings measured with air-filled catheter (AFC) and water-filled catheter (WFC) systems are equivalent during cystometric assessment, especially in case of pressure measurements at Valsalva manoeuvres and coughs.

Methods

Twenty-five subjects were recruited. The commercially available 7-Fr TDOC AFC, which simultaneously reads water and air pressures in the bladder and rectum, was used to compare filling and voiding data recordings. Data were compared using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman plots and linear correlation methods, respectively.

Results

Pressure readings measured by the two systems showed a good correlation at Valsalva manoeuvres [R2 = 0.988, 0.968 for vesical pressure (Pves) and abdominal pressure (Pabd), respectively] and at coughs (R2 = 0.972, 0.943 for Pves and Pabd, respectively). There was a statistically significant difference between the two different measurement modalities at coughs (p < 0.01), initial resting pressure (p < 0.01) and the maximum pressure at detrusor overactivity (p < 0.01). This indicated that the difference between the two measurement modalities during Valsalva manoeuvres could reach up to 5.2 cmH2O and 8.1 cmH2O in Pves and Pabd measurements, respectively. During coughs, the difference could reach up to 20 cmH2O and 19.5 cmH2O in Pves and Pabd measurements, respectively.

Conclusions

Pressure recordings from AFC and WFC systems appear to be interchangeable for some urodynamics parameters such as Pves at Valsalva manoeuvres if the baseline pressure is compensated, but not for fast-changing pressure signals such as coughs. This has to be considered when pressures are being taken with the AFC.

Keywords

Air-filled catheter Water-filled catheter Urodynamics Comparison study 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Laborie Medical Technologies for funding of this study. Furthermore, the study was partly supported by a grant from the German charity fund “Association for continence research and continence education”, Karmeliterhöfe, Karmeliterstr. 10, 52064 Aachen, Germany. Some of the charity money was donated by reimbursement for urodynamic teaching from Laborie Medical Technologies. The corresponding author is grateful for the funding from the China Scholarship Council (201608080204).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical Commission, Faculty of Medicine, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, ethical vote number: 395/15.

Informed consent

Yes.

Conflicts of interest

Ruth Kirschner-Hermanns received honoraria from Laborie Medical Technologies or Urodynamic Teaching and has been an invited speaker at Repha GmgH, Germany.

Wei Sheng has nothing to disclose.

Supplementary material

192_2019_3914_Fig4_ESM.png (203 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1.

Bland-Altman plots. Evaluation of equivalence between Pdet-WFC and Pdet-AFC at start of filling, 50 ml, 100 ml, 200 ml, 300 ml, MCC, Qmax, DO and end of voiding from graph A to C, respectively. The direction of the differences presented is water-filled measurement minus air-filled measurement (PNG 202 kb)

192_2019_3914_MOESM1_ESM.tif (387 kb)
High-resolution image (TIF 386 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Abrams P, Damaser MS, Niblett P, et al. Air filled, including "air-charged," catheters in urodynamic studies: does the evidence justify their use? Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:1234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Digesu GA, Derpapas A, Robshaw P, et al. Are the measurements of water filled and air-charged catheters the same in urodynamics? Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gammie A, Abrams P, Bevan W, et al. Simultaneous in vivo comparison of water-filled and air-filled pressure measurement catheters: implications for good urodynamic practice. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:926–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKinney TB, Babin EA, Ciolfi V, et al. Comparison of water and air charged transducer catheter pressures in the evaluation of cystometrogram and voiding pressure studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:1434–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosier PFWM, Schaefer W, Lose G, et al. International Continence Society Good Urodynamic Practices and Terms 2016: Urodynamics, uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure-flow study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:1243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gammie A, Drake M, Swithinbank L, et al. Absolute versus relative pressure. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKinney T, Babin E, Campbell A, et al. Comparison of water and air-charged transducer catheters in the evaluation of cystometrogram pressures. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:S270–2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sullivan J, Lewis P, Howell S, et al. Quality control in urodynamics: a review of urodynamic traces from one centre. BJU Int. 2003;91:201–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;(8476):307–10.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:571–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cooper MA, Fletter PC, Zaszczurynski PJ, Damaser MS. Comparison of air-charged and water-filled urodynamic pressure measurement catheters. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30:329–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Awada HK, Fletter PC, Zaszczurynski PJ, et al. Conversion of urodynamic pressures measured simultaneously by air-charged and water-filled catheter systems. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:507–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gammie A, Clarkson B, Constantinou C, et al. International Continence Society guidelines on urodynamic equipment performance. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33:370–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology/Neuro-Urology, University ClinicRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Neuro-Urology, Neurological Rehabilitation Center, GodeshoeheBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations