Advertisement

The Normal Study

  • Michelle E. KoskiEmail author
  • Eric S. Rovner
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter gives an overview of how to determine a normal urodynamic evaluation in adults and children. In order to define and assess a normal study, one must be aware of the normal values in each measurable parameter, as well as the appearance, pattern, and configuration of the graphic display, and the variability that is noted in these parameters, even in normal, asymptomatic patients. Several examples of normal urodynamic studies are given.

Keywords

Detrusor Overactivity Bladder Volume Detrusor Pressure Bladder Filling Intravesical Pressure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Hosker G, Rosier P, Gajewski J, et al. Dynamic testing. In: Abrams/Cardozo/Khoury/Wein 4th International Consultation on Incontinence. Paris: Health Publication Ltd.; 2009. p. 417–34.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mahfouz W, Al Afraa T, Campeau L, et al. Normal urodynamic parameters in women. Part II – invasive urodynamics. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:269–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardization of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardization sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Urology. 2003;61:37–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wyndaele JJ, De Wachter S. Cystometrical sensory data from a normal population: comparison of two groups of young healthy volunteers examined with 5 years interval. Eur Urol. 2002;42(1):34–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neveus T, von Gontard A, Hoebeke P, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function in children and adolescents: report from the Standardisation Committee of the International Children’s Continence Society. J Urol. 2006;176(1):314–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Wachter S, Wyndaele JJ. Frequency–volume charts: a tool to evaluate bladder sensation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22:638–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heslington K, Hilton P. Ambulatory monitoring and conventional cystometry in asymptomatic female volunteers. B J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103(5):434–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weld KJ, Graney MJ, Dmochowski RR. Differences in bladder compliance with time and associations of bladder management with compliance in spinal cord injured patients. J Urol. 2000;163:1228–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaufman AM, Ritchey MI, Roberts AC, et al. Decreased bladder compliance in patients with myelomeningocele treated with radiological observation. J Urol. 1996;156:2031–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nitti V. Urodynamic and videourodynamic evaluation of the lower urinary tract. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, NOvick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2012.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blaivas JG, Chancellor M, Weiss J, Verhaaren M, editors. Atlas of urodynamics. Milton: Blackwell; 2007.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(3):261–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siroky MB, Olsson CA, Krane RJ. The flow rate nomogram. I. Development. J Urol. 1979;122:665–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halen BT, Ashby D, Stherest JR, et al. Maximum and average urine flow rate in normal male and female populations – the liverpool nomogram. Br J Urol. 1989;64:30–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Clinical practice guideline: urinary incontinence in adults. AHPCR Pub No. 96-0682. Rockville: Dept of Health and Human Services (US), Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyKaiser Permanente Southern CaliforniaSan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations