Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of external transducers and microtransducers in urodynamic studies of female patients

  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The urodynamic catheter and its transducer play a significant role in the performance of good urodynamic studies. The fluid-filled (perfusion) catheter with its external strain gauge transducer and the microtransducer catheter with a transducer built directly into the catheter are the two most prevalent catheters used in urodynamic studies today. Either functions differently with regard to how pressures are measured during testing. Both are unique with regard to their requirements for handling and management during testing. Proper transducer calibration, maintenance of standardized reference levels, and attention to catheter zeroing procedures as outlined by the International Continence Society are vital to good study technique and quality testing results. When used in a manner consistent with the catheter’s performance characteristics, study error is minimized and meaningful clinical data can be obtained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Rowan D, James ED, Kramer AE, et al.: Urodynamic equipment: technical aspects. J Med Engl Technol 1987, 11:57–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Anonymous: Disposable pressure transducers. Health Devices 1988, 17:75-94.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kaula N: Practical engineering aspects of urodynamics. In Practical Urodynamics. Edited by Nitti VW. Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders; 1998:4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bump RC: The urodynamics laboratory. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1989, 16:795–816.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown M, Wickham JE: The urethral pressure profile. Br J Urol 1969, 41:211–214.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nitti VW, Combs AJ: Urodynamics: when, why, and how. In Practical Urodynamics. Edited by Nitti VW. Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders; 1998:15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al.: Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn2002, 21:261–274. Comprehensive guidelines are provided by the ICS for good urodynamic practice of quality control, signal testing and measurement, and documentation. The potential to obtain good results occurs when the suggested standards of good urodynamic practice are followed.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Abrams P: Urodynamics equipment. In Urodynamics Principles, Practice, and Application. Edited by Mundy AR, Stephenson TP, Wein AJ. New York: Churchill Livingston; 1984:69–75.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Websters GD, Guralnick ML: The neurourologic evaluation. In Campbell’s Urology. Edited by Campbell MF, Walsh PC, Retik AB. New York: Churchill Livingston; 2002:900–930.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Millar HD, Baker LE: Stable ultraminiature catheter tip pressure transducer. Med Biol Eng 1973, 11:86–89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Asmussen M, Ulmsten U: Simultaneous urethral pressure profile measurements with a new technique. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scan 1975, 54:385–386.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Karram M: Urodynamics; cystometry. In Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery. Edited by Walters MD, Karram, MM. St. Louis: Mosby; 1999:55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Leach GA, Farsaii A, Raz S: New dual-channel microtip transducer catheter for urethral pressure profile and cystometry. Urology 1982, 20:555–557.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bruskewitz R, Raz S: Urethral pressure profile using microtip catheter in females. Urology 1979, 14:303–307.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lose G, Griffiths D, Hosker G, Kulseng-Hanssen S: Standardization of urethral pressure measurement: report from the Standardization Subcommittee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 2002, 21:258–260. Guidelines are suggested by the ICS for good urodynamic practice for assessment of urethral pressure during urethral closure and voiding function.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sand P: Transducer-induced artifacts. In Urodynamics and Evaluation of Female Incontinence: A Practical Guide. Edited by Sand PK, Ostergard DR. UK: Springer; 1997:154–155.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nitti VW: Cystometry and abdominal pressure monitoring. In Practical Urodynamics. Edited by Nitti VW. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1998:38–51.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sand P: Transducer placement and poor calibration. In Urodynamics and Evaluation of Female Incontinence: A Practical Guide. Edited by Sand PK, Ostergard DR. UK: Springer; 1997:147–149.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sand P: Rectal and vaginal peristalsis. In Urodynamics and Evaluation of Female Incontinence: A Practical Guide. Edited by Sand PK, Ostergard DR. UK: Springer; 1997:143–146.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Smith CP, Boone TB, Nitti VW: Pitfalls and artifacts in Urodynamic Studies. In Practical Urodynamics. Edited by Nitti VW. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1998:131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McCarthy TA: Validity of rectal pressure measurements as indication of intra-abdominal pressure changes during urodynamic evaluation. Urology 1982, 20:657–660.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. James ED, Niblett PG, MacNaughton JA, Shaldon C: The vagina as an alternative to the rectum in measuring abdominal pressure during urodynamic investigations. Br J Urol 1987, 60:212–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhatia NN, Bergman A: Urodynamic appraisal of vaginal pressure versus rectal pressure recording as indication of intraabdominal pressure changes. Urology 1986, 27:482–485.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. O’Donnell PD: Pitfalls of urodynamic testing. Urol Clin North Am 1991, 18:257–268.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Plevnik S: Urethral pressure profilometry, dynamic urethral pressures, urethral electrical conductivity and urethral sensitivity measurements. In Urodynamics. Edited by Abrams P. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1997:145–164.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wang AC, Chen M: A comparison of urethral pressure profilometry using microtip and double-lumen perfusion catheters in women with genuine stress incontinence. BJOG 2002, 109:322–326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Culligan PJ, Goldberg RP, Blackhurst DW, et al.: Comparison of microtransducer and fiberoptic catheters for urodynamic studies. Obstet Gynecol 2001, 98:253–257.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Elser DM, London W, Fantl JA, et al.: A comparison of urethral profilometry using microtip and fiberoptic catheters. Int Urogynecol J 1999, 10:371–374.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sand PK, Bowen LW, Panganiban R, Ostergard DR: The low pressure urethra as a factor in failed retropubic urethropexy. Obstet Gynecol 1987, 69:399–402.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ghoniem MA, Rottembourg JL, Fretin J, Susset JG: Urethral pressure profile, standardization of technique and study of reproducibility. Urology 1975, 5:632–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Haeusler G, Tempfer C, Heinzl H, et al.: Value of urethral pressure profilometry in the female incontinent patient: a prospective trial with an 8-channel urethral catheter. Urology 1998, 52:1113–1117.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Steele GS, Sullivan MP, Yalla SV: Urethral pressure profilometry: vesicourethral pressure measurements under resting and voiding conditions. In Practical Urodynamics. Edited by Nitti VW. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1998:108–130.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Anderson RS, Shepherd AM, Feneley RC: Microtransducer urethral profile methodology: variations caused by transducer orientation. J Urol 1983, 130:727–728.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Teague CT, Merrill DC: Laboratory comparison of urethral profilometry techniques. Urology 1979, 13:221–228.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bump RC, Elser DM, Theofrastous JP, McClish DK: Valsalva leak point pressures in women with genuine stress in continence: reproducibility, effect of catheter, caliber, and correlations with other measures of urethral resistance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995, 173:551–557.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Decter RM, Harpster L: Pitfalls in determination of leak point pressure. J Urol 1992, 148:588–591.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Urogynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, 7550 Fannin Street, 77054, Houston, TX, USA

    Peter M. Lotze MD

Authors
  1. Peter M. Lotze MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lotze, P.M. A comparison of external transducers and microtransducers in urodynamic studies of female patients. Curr Urol Rep 6, 326–334 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-005-0048-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-005-0048-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation