Effect of catheter size on urodynamic assessment of bladder outlet obstruction

Urology

Volumn 60, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 875-880

  Klausner, Adam P ^a   Galea, Joseph ^b   Vapnek, Jonathan M ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLADDER CATHETERIZATION; BLADDER NECK STENOSIS; BLADDER PRESSURE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DETRUSOR MUSCLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FLOW MEASUREMENT; FLOW RATE; HUMAN; MICTURITION; NOMOGRAM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE HYPERTROPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SYMPTOMATOLOGY; URETHRA; URINE CATHETER; URINE VOLUME; URODYNAMICS;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA; URINARY BLADDER NECK OBSTRUCTION; URINARY CATHETERIZATION; URINATION; URINE; URODYNAMICS;

EID: 0036845792     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01873-3     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Griffiths D.J. Pressure-flow studies of micturition. Urol Clin North Am. 23:1996;279-297.
2. Abrams P.H., Griffiths D.J. The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. Br J Urol. 51:1979;129-134.
3. Klingler H.C., Madersbacher S., Schmidbauer C.P. Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn. 15:1996;473-481.
4. Neal D.E., Rao C.V.S., Styles R.A., et al. Effects of catheter size on urodynamic measurements in men undergoing elective prostatectomy. Br J Urol. 60:1987;64-68.
5. Ryall R.L., Marshall V.R. The effect of a urethral catheter on the measurement of maximum urinary flow rate. J Urol. 128:1982;429-432.
6. Lose G., Thunedborg P., Colstrup H., et al. Spontaneous versus intubated flow in male patients. Urology. 32:1988;553-556.
7. Reynard J.M., Lim C., Swami S., et al. The obstructive effect of a urethral catheter. J Urol. 155:1996;901-903.
8. Hansen F., Olsen L., Atan A., et al. Pressure-flow studies an evaluation of within-testing reproducibility - validity of the measured parameters . Neurourol Urodyn. 16:1997;521-532.
9. Walker R.M.H., Patel A., St. Clair-Carter S. Is there a clinically significant change in pressure-flow study values after urethral instrumentation in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms? Br J Urol. 81:1998;206-210.
10. Decter R.M., Harpster L. Pitfalls in determination of leak point pressure. J Urol. 148:1992;588-591.
11. Tessier J., Schick E. Does urethral instrumentation affect uroflowmetry measurements? Br J Urol. 65:1990;261-263.
12. Koraitim M. Catheter as source of error in urodynamic study. Urology. 20:1982;223-225.
13. Schafer W. Analysis of bladder-outlet function with the linearized passive urethral resistance relation, linPURR, and a disease-specific approach for grading obstruction from complex to simple . World J Urol. 13:1995;47-58.
14. Berend R., Pel J.J.M., Van-Mastrigt R. Repeat noninvasive bladder pressure measurements with an external catheter. J Urol. 162:1999;474-479.