Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Decreased maximum flow rate during intubated flow is not only due to urethral catheter in situ

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We used the Valentini–Besson–Nelson (VBN) mathematical micturition model to analyze the potential obstructive effect of a 7-F transurethral catheter on the voiding process during intubated flow (IF) in women. Our hypothesis was that incomplete sphincter relaxation leads to residual sphincter pressure.

Methods

We reviewed a urodynamic database of women referred for evaluation of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Exclusion criteria were neurological disease or grade ≥2 prolapse. Eligible women underwent free uroflow (FF-1) before cystometry, an IF (7-F urethral catheter), and a second FF (FF-2) at the end of the session. Interpreted flows were restricted to voided volumes ≥100 ml and continuous flow patterns. Analysis of FF and IF was made using the VBN model.

Results

Among 472 women, 157 met the inclusion criteria. The effect of the urethral catheter was geometric only in 60 (38.2 %) patients. An additional effect, identified as incomplete sphincter relaxation, was observed in 97 (61.9 %) patients. Among this second group, the same residual sphincter excitation was found for 30 (30.97 %) patients during FF-2.

Conclusion

When comparing IF with FF with the VBN model, the decrease in maximum flow rate (Qmax) did not appear to result only from the geometric effect of the catheter but from incomplete sphincter relaxation during voiding, possibly because of patient’s anxiety or a urethral reflex induced by the presence of the catheter. These findings emphasize the need to perform an FF before the IF to strengthen the reliability of conclusions of a urodynamic investigation.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Klinger HC, Maderbasher S, Schmidbauer CP (1996) Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn 15:473–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baseman AG, Baseman JJG, Zimmern PE, Lemack GE (2002) Effect of 6-F urethral catheterization on urinary flow rates during repeated pressure-flow studies in healthy female volunteers. Urology 59:843–846

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sorensen S, Janler M, Knudsen UB, Djuruus JC (1989) The influence of a urethral catheter and age on recorded urinary flow rates in healthy women. Scand J Urol Nephrol 23:261–266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Scaldazza CV, Morosetti C (2005) Effect of different sized transurethral catheters on pressure-flow studies in women with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urol Int 75:21–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Costantini E, Mearini L, Biscotto S, Giannantoni A, Bini V, Porena M (2005) Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in women with lower urinary tract symptoms. Neurourol Urodyn 24:106–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Sassone AM (2000) Detrusor pressure uroflowmetry studies in women: effect of a 7Fr transurethral catheter. J Urol 164:109–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Reynard JM, Lim C, Swami S, Abrams P (1996) The obstructive effect of a urethral catheter. J Urol 155:901–903

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Haylen BT, Cerqui A, Law M, Dietz P (1999) Effect of a size 7Fr urethral catheter on urine flow rates in urogynaecology patients. Int Urogynecol J Suppl 10:S98, abstract Denver ICS-IUGA meeting, Informally discussed posters: Urodynamics

    Google Scholar 

  9. Di Grazia E, Bartolotta S, Salvia G et al (2002) Detrusor pressure uroflowmetry studies in women: effect of 4-Fr transurethral catheter. Arch Ital Urol Androl 74:134–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lose G, Thunedborg P, Jorgensen L, Colstrup H (1986) A comparison of spontaneous and intubated flow in female patients. Neurourol Urodyn 5:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Richard P, Ordonez NI, Tu LM (2011) The effect of a 6Fr catheter on urodynamic studies: are they obstructive? AUA Annual meeting, 2011, May 14–19, abstract 2175

  12. Gajanan SB, Girish GN, Chandrashekhar SR, Venkatesh GK (2011) Free uroflow versus pressure-flow urodynamic outcomes: does the transurethral catheter cause a measurement artifact? UroToday Int J. 2011 Jun 4(3). doi:10.3834/uij.1944-5784.2011.06.08

  13. Valentini F, Marti B, Robain G, Nelson P (2008) Differences between the data from free flow and intubated flow in women with urinary incontinence. What do they mean? Neurourol Urodyn 27:297–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Valentini FA, Mazières L, Nelson PP (2010) Can modeled analysis of urodynamic recordings help to demonstrate the nervous control of the bladder and urethra during micturition? UroToday Int J. Vol 3/Iss 4/August. doi:10.3834/iuj1944-5784.2010.08.10

  15. Hennebelle D, Valentini F, Robain G, Nelson P (2011) Decrease of maximum flow rate during intubated flow is not only due to the urethral catheter in situ. AUA annual meeting, 2011, May 14–19, abstract 2176

  16. Valentini FA, Besson GR, Nelson PP, Zimmern PE (2000) A mathematical micturition model to restore simple flow recordings in healthy and symptomatic individuals and enhance uroflow interpretation. Neurourol Urodyn 19:153–176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L et al (2002) Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 21:261–274

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Valentini FA, Besson GR, Nelson PP (1999) Effet obstructif d’un catheter urétral sur les parameters mictionnels: etude théorique. Prog Urol 9:361–370

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Koraitim M (1982) Catheter as source of error in urodynamic study. Urology 20:223–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Griffiths DJ (1980) Urodynamics: the mechanics and hydrodynamics of the lower urinary tract. Adam Hilger ed, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  21. Griffiths DJ (1973) The mechanics of the urethra and of micturition. BJU 45:497–507

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Besson G, Valentini F, Nelson P (1996) Progress in the theory of flow through the urethra during micturition. In International Continence Society 26th Annual meeting. Bologna: Monduzzi ed. pp 39–43

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Pr. Philippe Zimmern (The University of Texas, South-Western Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA) who kindly agreed to discuss the manuscript

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Françoise A. Valentini.

Appendices

Appendix 1

The Valentini–Besson–Nelson (VBN) mathematical model [16] is a quantitative description of the mechanistic phenomena governing micturition; these phenomena are bladder contractility, elasticity, and viscoelasticity [20]; urethral elasticity [21]; urethral compression by the sphincter; and turbulent incompressible fluid hydrodynamics [22]. Each phenomenon considered separately is accurately described in previous reports and can easily be studied. However, when combined, as during voiding, they constitute such an intricate set that to analyze individual recorded voiding and reconstruct the possible causes of dysfunction (e.g., compressive or constrictive urethral obstruction), elaborate software is needed, e.g., VBN® software. Upon gender and initial bladder volume being entered, the VBN® software allows voiding curves to be computed: flow rate and detrusor pressure vs. time. Two parameters describe the status of the urethra. The first, σ, characterized its effective cross-sectional area: a constrictive obstruction (a stricture) is characterized by σ < 1 and a gaping by σ > 1; the second parameter, γ, describes a local compressive obstruction exerted on the urethra (similar to the effect of an enlarged prostate in men). Parameter σ is without unit (multiplicative coefficient of the normal value); parameter γ represents a pressure in which the unit is centimeters of H2O. Detrusor force is characterized by a detrusor force parameter k (a normal detrusor is associated with k = 1). Any voiding depends on both urethral and detrusor parameters and on possible circumstantial parameters (fading detrusor excitation, delayed sphincter opening or incomplete relaxation…).

Appendix 2

To analyze the geometric obstructive effect of a 7-F urethral catheter, theoretical computations were performed, using the Valentini–Besson–Nelson (VBN) model [16] in well-defined conditions. Calculations were made first for a normal urethra (no compression or constriction) (Fig. 4, left) and second for a urethra with an external compression of 15 cm H2O (Fig. 4 right). In each situation, two values of detrusor contractility were tested: k = 1 (normal detrusor) and k = 0.3 (hypocontractile detrusor). The range of initial bladder volumes was 100–600 ml.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Theoretical computations of the effect of a 7-F urethral catheter on maximum flow rate vs. initial bladder volume. Left normal urethra, normal detrusor contractility (k = 1), and decreased detrusor contractility (k = 0.3). Right urethral compression of 15 cm H2O, normal detrusor contractility (k = 1), and decreased detrusor contractility (k = 0.3)

For Vini = 400 ml (near the mean value in our study), the maximum decrease of Qmax was 3.4 ml/s; it was observed for a normal urethra and a normal detrusor. In all other cases, the decrease was lower.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Valentini, F.A., Robain, G., Hennebelle, D.S. et al. Decreased maximum flow rate during intubated flow is not only due to urethral catheter in situ. Int Urogynecol J 24, 461–467 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1856-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1856-2

Keywords

Navigation