Urology
Volume 59, Issue 6 , Pages 843-846 , June 2002

Effect of 6F urethral catheterization on urinary flow rates during repeated pressure-flow studies in healthy female volunteers

  • Adam G Baseman

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
    • ,
  • Janet G Baseman

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
    • ,
  • Philippe E Zimmern

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
    • ,
  • Gary E Lemack

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Gary E. Lemack, M.D., Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390-9110 USA
    • Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

Received 18 December 2001 ,Revised 29 January 2002 ,Accepted 29 January 2002.

References 

  1. Van Waalwijk van Doorn ES, Remmers A, Janknegt RA. Extramural ambulatory urodynamic monitoring during natural filling and normal daily activities (evaluation of 100 patients). J Urol. 1991;146:124–131
  2. Lemack GE, Zimmern PE. Pressure-flow analysis can aid in identifying women with outflow obstruction. J Urol. 2000;163:1823–1828
  3. Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Sassone AM. Detrusor pressure uroflowmetry studies in women (effect of a 7Fr transurethral catheter). J Urol. 2000;164:109–114
  4. Lose G, Thunedborg P, Jorgensen L, et al.  A comparison of spontaneous and intubated urinary flow in female patients. Neurourol Urodyn. 1986;5:1–4
  5. Sorensen S, Jonler M, Knudsen UB, et al.  The influence of a urethral catheter and age on recorded urinary flow rates in healthy women. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1989;23:261–266
  6. Walker RMH, Di Pasquale B, Hubregtse M, et al.  Pressure-flow studies in the diagnosis of bladder outlet obstruction (a study comparing suprapubic and transurethral techniques). Br J Urol. 1997;79:693–697
  7. Ryall RL, Marshall VR. The effect of a urethral catheter on the measurement of maximum urinary flow rate. J Urol. 1982;128:429–432
  8. Reid RE, Chandrasekar D, Pugach R, et al.  Effect of varying size of urethral catheters upon flow and resistance measurements. Neurourol Urodyn. 1986;5:277–281
  9. Klingler HC, Madersbacher S, Schmidbauer CP. Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn. 1996;15:473–481
  10. Reynard JM, Lim C, Swami S, et al.  The obstructive effect of a urethral catheter. J Urol. 1996;155:901–903
  11. Uebersax JS, Wyman FF, Shumaker SA, et al.  Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women (the Incontinence Impact questionnaire and Urogenital Distress Inventory). Neurourol Urodyn. 1995;14:131–139
  12. Koraitim M. Catheter as source of error in urodynamic study. Urology. 1982;10:223–225
  13. Blaivas JG, Groutz A. Bladder outlet obstruction nomogram for women with lower urinary tract symptomatology. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000;19:553–564
  14. Lemack GE, Baseman AG, Zimmern PE. Urodynamic studies in asymptomatic women (intra-test and inter-test reproducibility). (abstract) J Urol. 2001;165:298
  15. Abrams P, Griffiths D, Liao L, et al.  The urodynamic assessment of lower urinary tract symptoms. In:  Denis L,  Griffiths K,  Khoury S, et al. editor. Fourth International Consultation on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. vol 4:Plymouth, UK: Plymbridge Distributors; 1998;p. 229–281

PII: S0090-4295(02)01600-X

Urology
Volume 59, Issue 6 , Pages 843-846 , June 2002

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution