Artifact Recognition and Solutions in Urodynamics

  • Ross RamesEmail author
  • Lara S. MacLachlan


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.


Pelvic Floor Bladder Wall Bladder Outlet Obstruction Pressure Reading Urinary Flow Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hogan S, Gammie A, Abrams P. Urodynamic features and artefacts. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(7):1104–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray M. Traces: making sense of urodynamics testing—part 3: electromyography of the pelvic floor muscles. Urol Nurs. 2011;31(1):31–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosario DJ, Chapple CR, Tophill PR, Woo HH. Urodynamic assessment of the bashful bladder. J Urol. 2000;163(1):215–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations