Abstract
Artifacts occurring during the performance of urodynamic studies are observations or findings that are not naturally present in the patient’s normal micturition process, and are the result of the study process itself. They can arise from technical problems with catheters, electrodes, transducers, or other electrical equipment. The unnatural conditions of the urodynamic experience may trigger patient behaviors, such as psychogenic inhibition, making it challenging to evaluate voiding function. Here we characterize common pressure artifacts such as signal mismatch and drift of Pves and Pabd, EMG problems, and issues arising from spurious uroflowmetry and patient factors. Potential solutions to these technical problems are offered to facilitate a more complete, accurate, and useful urodynamic study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Digesu GA, Derpapas A, Robshaw P, Vijaya G, Hendricken C, Khullar V. Are the measurements of water-filled and air-charged catheters the same in urodynamics? Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):123–30.
Hundley AF, Brown MB, Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Kreder K, Lotze P, et al. A multicentered comparison of measurements obtained with microtip and external water pressure transducers. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(4):400–6.
Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Mattiasson A, Pesce F, Spangberg A, et al. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(3):261–74.
Hogan S, Gammie A, Abrams P. Urodynamic features and artefacts. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(7):1104–17.
Gray M. Traces: making sense of urodynamics testing—part 3: electromyography of the pelvic floor muscles. Urol Nurs. 2011;31(1):31–8.
van Koeveringe GA, Rahnama’i MS, Berghmans BC. The additional value of ambulatory urodynamic measurements compared with conventional urodynamic measurements. BJU Int. 2010;105(4):508–13.
van Waalwijk van Doorn E, Anders K, Khullar V, Kulseng-Hanssen S, Pesce F, Robertson A, et al. Standardisation of ambulatory urodynamic monitoring: report of the Standardisation Sub-Committee of the International Continence Society for ambulatory urodynamic studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000;19(2):113–25.
Rosario DJ, Chapple CR, Tophill PR, Woo HH. Urodynamic assessment of the bashful bladder. J Urol. 2000;163(1):215–20.
Gray M. Traces: making sense of urodynamics testing—part 10: evaluation of micturition via the voiding pressure-flow study. Urol Nurs. 2012;32(2):71–8.
Addla SK, Marri RR, Daayana SL, Irwin P. Avoid cruising on the uroflowmeter: evaluation of cruising artifact on spinning disc flowmeters in an experimental setup. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(7):1301–5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rames, R., MacLachlan, L.S. (2015). Artifact Recognition and Solutions in Urodynamics. In: Rovner, E., Koski, M. (eds) Rapid and Practical Interpretation of Urodynamics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1764-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1764-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1763-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1764-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)