Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 3/2013

01-03-2013 | Original Article

Decreased maximum flow rate during intubated flow is not only due to urethral catheter in situ

Authors: Françoise A. Valentini, Gilberte Robain, Dorothée S. Hennebelle, Pierre P. Nelson

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We used the Valentini–Besson–Nelson (VBN) mathematical micturition model to analyze the potential obstructive effect of a 7-F transurethral catheter on the voiding process during intubated flow (IF) in women. Our hypothesis was that incomplete sphincter relaxation leads to residual sphincter pressure.

Methods

We reviewed a urodynamic database of women referred for evaluation of lower urinary tract dysfunction. Exclusion criteria were neurological disease or grade ≥2 prolapse. Eligible women underwent free uroflow (FF-1) before cystometry, an IF (7-F urethral catheter), and a second FF (FF-2) at the end of the session. Interpreted flows were restricted to voided volumes ≥100 ml and continuous flow patterns. Analysis of FF and IF was made using the VBN model.

Results

Among 472 women, 157 met the inclusion criteria. The effect of the urethral catheter was geometric only in 60 (38.2 %) patients. An additional effect, identified as incomplete sphincter relaxation, was observed in 97 (61.9 %) patients. Among this second group, the same residual sphincter excitation was found for 30 (30.97 %) patients during FF-2.

Conclusion

When comparing IF with FF with the VBN model, the decrease in maximum flow rate (Qmax) did not appear to result only from the geometric effect of the catheter but from incomplete sphincter relaxation during voiding, possibly because of patient’s anxiety or a urethral reflex induced by the presence of the catheter. These findings emphasize the need to perform an FF before the IF to strengthen the reliability of conclusions of a urodynamic investigation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Klinger HC, Maderbasher S, Schmidbauer CP (1996) Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn 15:473–481CrossRef Klinger HC, Maderbasher S, Schmidbauer CP (1996) Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol Urodyn 15:473–481CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Baseman AG, Baseman JJG, Zimmern PE, Lemack GE (2002) Effect of 6-F urethral catheterization on urinary flow rates during repeated pressure-flow studies in healthy female volunteers. Urology 59:843–846PubMedCrossRef Baseman AG, Baseman JJG, Zimmern PE, Lemack GE (2002) Effect of 6-F urethral catheterization on urinary flow rates during repeated pressure-flow studies in healthy female volunteers. Urology 59:843–846PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Sorensen S, Janler M, Knudsen UB, Djuruus JC (1989) The influence of a urethral catheter and age on recorded urinary flow rates in healthy women. Scand J Urol Nephrol 23:261–266PubMedCrossRef Sorensen S, Janler M, Knudsen UB, Djuruus JC (1989) The influence of a urethral catheter and age on recorded urinary flow rates in healthy women. Scand J Urol Nephrol 23:261–266PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Scaldazza CV, Morosetti C (2005) Effect of different sized transurethral catheters on pressure-flow studies in women with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urol Int 75:21–25PubMedCrossRef Scaldazza CV, Morosetti C (2005) Effect of different sized transurethral catheters on pressure-flow studies in women with lower urinary tract symptoms. Urol Int 75:21–25PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Costantini E, Mearini L, Biscotto S, Giannantoni A, Bini V, Porena M (2005) Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in women with lower urinary tract symptoms. Neurourol Urodyn 24:106–110PubMedCrossRef Costantini E, Mearini L, Biscotto S, Giannantoni A, Bini V, Porena M (2005) Impact of different sized catheters on pressure-flow studies in women with lower urinary tract symptoms. Neurourol Urodyn 24:106–110PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Sassone AM (2000) Detrusor pressure uroflowmetry studies in women: effect of a 7Fr transurethral catheter. J Urol 164:109–114PubMedCrossRef Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Sassone AM (2000) Detrusor pressure uroflowmetry studies in women: effect of a 7Fr transurethral catheter. J Urol 164:109–114PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Reynard JM, Lim C, Swami S, Abrams P (1996) The obstructive effect of a urethral catheter. J Urol 155:901–903PubMedCrossRef Reynard JM, Lim C, Swami S, Abrams P (1996) The obstructive effect of a urethral catheter. J Urol 155:901–903PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Cerqui A, Law M, Dietz P (1999) Effect of a size 7Fr urethral catheter on urine flow rates in urogynaecology patients. Int Urogynecol J Suppl 10:S98, abstract Denver ICS-IUGA meeting, Informally discussed posters: Urodynamics Haylen BT, Cerqui A, Law M, Dietz P (1999) Effect of a size 7Fr urethral catheter on urine flow rates in urogynaecology patients. Int Urogynecol J Suppl 10:S98, abstract Denver ICS-IUGA meeting, Informally discussed posters: Urodynamics
9.
go back to reference Di Grazia E, Bartolotta S, Salvia G et al (2002) Detrusor pressure uroflowmetry studies in women: effect of 4-Fr transurethral catheter. Arch Ital Urol Androl 74:134–137PubMed Di Grazia E, Bartolotta S, Salvia G et al (2002) Detrusor pressure uroflowmetry studies in women: effect of 4-Fr transurethral catheter. Arch Ital Urol Androl 74:134–137PubMed
10.
go back to reference Lose G, Thunedborg P, Jorgensen L, Colstrup H (1986) A comparison of spontaneous and intubated flow in female patients. Neurourol Urodyn 5:1–4CrossRef Lose G, Thunedborg P, Jorgensen L, Colstrup H (1986) A comparison of spontaneous and intubated flow in female patients. Neurourol Urodyn 5:1–4CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Richard P, Ordonez NI, Tu LM (2011) The effect of a 6Fr catheter on urodynamic studies: are they obstructive? AUA Annual meeting, 2011, May 14–19, abstract 2175 Richard P, Ordonez NI, Tu LM (2011) The effect of a 6Fr catheter on urodynamic studies: are they obstructive? AUA Annual meeting, 2011, May 14–19, abstract 2175
12.
go back to reference Gajanan SB, Girish GN, Chandrashekhar SR, Venkatesh GK (2011) Free uroflow versus pressure-flow urodynamic outcomes: does the transurethral catheter cause a measurement artifact? UroToday Int J. 2011 Jun 4(3). doi:10.3834/uij.1944-5784.2011.06.08 Gajanan SB, Girish GN, Chandrashekhar SR, Venkatesh GK (2011) Free uroflow versus pressure-flow urodynamic outcomes: does the transurethral catheter cause a measurement artifact? UroToday Int J. 2011 Jun 4(3). doi:10.​3834/​uij.​1944-5784.​2011.​06.​08
13.
go back to reference Valentini F, Marti B, Robain G, Nelson P (2008) Differences between the data from free flow and intubated flow in women with urinary incontinence. What do they mean? Neurourol Urodyn 27:297–300PubMedCrossRef Valentini F, Marti B, Robain G, Nelson P (2008) Differences between the data from free flow and intubated flow in women with urinary incontinence. What do they mean? Neurourol Urodyn 27:297–300PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Valentini FA, Mazières L, Nelson PP (2010) Can modeled analysis of urodynamic recordings help to demonstrate the nervous control of the bladder and urethra during micturition? UroToday Int J. Vol 3/Iss 4/August. doi:10.3834/iuj1944-5784.2010.08.10 Valentini FA, Mazières L, Nelson PP (2010) Can modeled analysis of urodynamic recordings help to demonstrate the nervous control of the bladder and urethra during micturition? UroToday Int J. Vol 3/Iss 4/August. doi:10.​3834/​iuj1944-5784.​2010.​08.​10
15.
go back to reference Hennebelle D, Valentini F, Robain G, Nelson P (2011) Decrease of maximum flow rate during intubated flow is not only due to the urethral catheter in situ. AUA annual meeting, 2011, May 14–19, abstract 2176 Hennebelle D, Valentini F, Robain G, Nelson P (2011) Decrease of maximum flow rate during intubated flow is not only due to the urethral catheter in situ. AUA annual meeting, 2011, May 14–19, abstract 2176
16.
go back to reference Valentini FA, Besson GR, Nelson PP, Zimmern PE (2000) A mathematical micturition model to restore simple flow recordings in healthy and symptomatic individuals and enhance uroflow interpretation. Neurourol Urodyn 19:153–176PubMedCrossRef Valentini FA, Besson GR, Nelson PP, Zimmern PE (2000) A mathematical micturition model to restore simple flow recordings in healthy and symptomatic individuals and enhance uroflow interpretation. Neurourol Urodyn 19:153–176PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L et al (2002) Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 21:261–274PubMedCrossRef Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L et al (2002) Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 21:261–274PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Valentini FA, Besson GR, Nelson PP (1999) Effet obstructif d’un catheter urétral sur les parameters mictionnels: etude théorique. Prog Urol 9:361–370PubMed Valentini FA, Besson GR, Nelson PP (1999) Effet obstructif d’un catheter urétral sur les parameters mictionnels: etude théorique. Prog Urol 9:361–370PubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference Griffiths DJ (1980) Urodynamics: the mechanics and hydrodynamics of the lower urinary tract. Adam Hilger ed, Bristol Griffiths DJ (1980) Urodynamics: the mechanics and hydrodynamics of the lower urinary tract. Adam Hilger ed, Bristol
22.
go back to reference Besson G, Valentini F, Nelson P (1996) Progress in the theory of flow through the urethra during micturition. In International Continence Society 26th Annual meeting. Bologna: Monduzzi ed. pp 39–43 Besson G, Valentini F, Nelson P (1996) Progress in the theory of flow through the urethra during micturition. In International Continence Society 26th Annual meeting. Bologna: Monduzzi ed. pp 39–43
Metadata
Title
Decreased maximum flow rate during intubated flow is not only due to urethral catheter in situ
Authors
Françoise A. Valentini
Gilberte Robain
Dorothée S. Hennebelle
Pierre P. Nelson
Publication date
01-03-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1856-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

International Urogynecology Journal 3/2013 Go to the issue