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

01-03-2013 | Original Article

What is the relationship between free flow and pressure flow studies in women?

Authors: Jonathan Duckett, Katherine Cheema, Avanti Patil, Maya Basu, Sian Beale, Brian Wise

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The relationship between free flow (FFS) and pressure flow (PFS) voiding studies remains uncertain and the effect of a urethral catheter on flow rates has not been determined. The relationship between residuals obtained at FF and PFS has yet to be established.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study based on 474 consecutive women undergoing cystometry using different sized urethral catheters at different centres. FFS and PFS data were compared for different conditions and the relationship of residuals analysed for FFS and PFS. The null hypothesis was that urethral catheters do not produce an alteration in maximum flow rates for PFS and FF studies.

Results

Urethral catheterisation results in lower flow rates (p < 0.01) and this finding is confirmed when flows are corrected for voided volume (p < 0.01). FFS and PFS maximum flow rates are lower in women with DO than USI (p < 0.01). A 6-F urethral catheter does not have a significantly greater effect than a 4.5-F urethral catheter. A mathematical model can be applied to transform FFS to PFS flow rates and vice versa. There was no significant difference between the mean residuals of the two groups (FFS vs PFS—two-tailed t = 0.54, p = 0.59). Positive residuals in FFS showed a good association with positive residuals in the PFS (r = 0.53, p < 0.01)

Conclusions

Urethral catheterisation results in lower maximum flow rates. The relationship can be compared mathematically. The null hypothesis can be rejected.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Miller EA, Amundsen CL, Toh KL, Flynn BJ, Webster GD (2003) Preoperative urodynamic evaluation may predict voiding dysfunction in women undergoing pubovaginal sling. J Urol 169:2234–2237PubMedCrossRef Miller EA, Amundsen CL, Toh KL, Flynn BJ, Webster GD (2003) Preoperative urodynamic evaluation may predict voiding dysfunction in women undergoing pubovaginal sling. J Urol 169:2234–2237PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Duckett JR, Patil A, Papanikolaou NS (2008) Predicting early voiding dysfunction after tension-free vaginal tape. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:89–92PubMedCrossRef Duckett JR, Patil A, Papanikolaou NS (2008) Predicting early voiding dysfunction after tension-free vaginal tape. J Obstet Gynaecol 28:89–92PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Cho ST, Song HC, Song HJ, Lee YG, Kim KK (2010) Predictors of Postoperative Voiding Dysfunction following Transobsturator Sling Procedures in Patients with Stress Urinary Incontinence. Int Neurourol J 14:26–33PubMedCrossRef Cho ST, Song HC, Song HJ, Lee YG, Kim KK (2010) Predictors of Postoperative Voiding Dysfunction following Transobsturator Sling Procedures in Patients with Stress Urinary Incontinence. Int Neurourol J 14:26–33PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Panayi DC, Duckett J, Digesu GA, Camarata M, Basu M, Khullar V (2009) Pre-operative opening detrusor pressure is predictive of detrusor overactivity following TVT in patients with pre-operative mixed urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 28:82–85PubMedCrossRef Panayi DC, Duckett J, Digesu GA, Camarata M, Basu M, Khullar V (2009) Pre-operative opening detrusor pressure is predictive of detrusor overactivity following TVT in patients with pre-operative mixed urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 28:82–85PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Yang V, Logan V, Husselbee S, Law M, Zhou J (2009) Does the presenting bladder volume at urodynamics have any diagnostic relevance. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:319–324PubMedCrossRef Haylen BT, Yang V, Logan V, Husselbee S, Law M, Zhou J (2009) Does the presenting bladder volume at urodynamics have any diagnostic relevance. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:319–324PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Parys BT, Anyaegbunam WI, Ashby D, West CR (1990) Urine flow rates in male and female urodynamic patients compared with the Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 65:483–487PubMedCrossRef Haylen BT, Parys BT, Anyaegbunam WI, Ashby D, West CR (1990) Urine flow rates in male and female urodynamic patients compared with the Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 65:483–487PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Dietz HP, Haylen BT (2005) Symptoms of voiding dysfunction: what do they really mean? Int Urogynecol J 16:52–55CrossRef Dietz HP, Haylen BT (2005) Symptoms of voiding dysfunction: what do they really mean? Int Urogynecol J 16:52–55CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ryall RL, Marshall VR (1982) The effect of a urethral catheter on the measurement of maximal urinary flow rates. J Urol 128:429PubMed Ryall RL, Marshall VR (1982) The effect of a urethral catheter on the measurement of maximal urinary flow rates. J Urol 128:429PubMed
9.
go back to reference Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman R et al (2010) An international Urogynecological Association/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21:5–26PubMedCrossRef Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman R et al (2010) An international Urogynecological Association/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21:5–26PubMedCrossRef
10.
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
11.
go back to reference Rahmanou P, Chaliha C, Kulinskaya E, Khullar V (2008) Reliability testing of urodynamics, pressure flow studies and cough leak point pressure in women with urodynamic stress incontinence with and without detrusor overactivity. Int Urogynecol J 19:933–938CrossRef Rahmanou P, Chaliha C, Kulinskaya E, Khullar V (2008) Reliability testing of urodynamics, pressure flow studies and cough leak point pressure in women with urodynamic stress incontinence with and without detrusor overactivity. Int Urogynecol J 19:933–938CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Gleason DM, Bottaccini MR (1984) The effect of a fine urethral catheter on urinary flow rates in female patients. Neurourol Urodyn 3:163CrossRef Gleason DM, Bottaccini MR (1984) The effect of a fine urethral catheter on urinary flow rates in female patients. Neurourol Urodyn 3:163CrossRef
13.
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
14.
go back to reference Sorensen S, Jonler M, Knudsen UB et al (1989) The influence of a urethral catheter and age on recorded urinary flow rates in healthy women. Scand J Urol Nephrol 23:261PubMedCrossRef Sorensen S, Jonler M, Knudsen UB et al (1989) The influence of a urethral catheter and age on recorded urinary flow rates in healthy women. Scand J Urol Nephrol 23:261PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Lose G, Thunedborg P, Jorgensen L, Colstrup H (1986) A comparison of spontaneous and intubated urinary flow in female patients. Neurourol Urodyn 5:1–4CrossRef Lose G, Thunedborg P, Jorgensen L, Colstrup H (1986) A comparison of spontaneous and intubated urinary flow in female patients. Neurourol Urodyn 5:1–4CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Cerqui A, Law M et al (1999) Effect of 7FG urethral catheter on urine flow rates in urogynaecological patients. Int Urogynecol J 10 [Suppl 1]:30 Haylen BT, Cerqui A, Law M et al (1999) Effect of 7FG urethral catheter on urine flow rates in urogynaecological patients. Int Urogynecol J 10 [Suppl 1]:30
17.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Yang V, Logan V (2008) Uroflometry: its current clinical utility for women. Int Urogynaecol J 19:899–903CrossRef Haylen BT, Yang V, Logan V (2008) Uroflometry: its current clinical utility for women. Int Urogynaecol J 19:899–903CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Digesu GA, Hutchings A, Salvatore S, Selvaggi L, Khullar V (2003) Reproducibility and reliability of pressure flow parameters in women. BJOG 110:774–776PubMedCrossRef Digesu GA, Hutchings A, Salvatore S, Selvaggi L, Khullar V (2003) Reproducibility and reliability of pressure flow parameters in women. BJOG 110:774–776PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
What is the relationship between free flow and pressure flow studies in women?
Authors
Jonathan Duckett
Katherine Cheema
Avanti Patil
Maya Basu
Sian Beale
Brian Wise
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/s00192-012-1883-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

International Urogynecology Journal 3/2013 Go to the issue