Advertisement

Optimizing the Study

  • Lynette E. FranklinEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Comprehensive guidelines for good urodynamic practices have been developed and reviewed by experts within the International Continence Society (Schafer et al., Neurourol Urodyn 21:261–74, 2002). These expert guidelines are best translated into a clinically effective study when combined with practical clinical knowledge that helps identify and resolve any barriers to performing a high quality study. Pressure-flow urodynamics are, in general, a nonphysiological test: the study involves rapid filling, with room temperature fluid, which is NOT urine, conducted in a clinical setting without privacy. Advance planning and real time trouble-shooting of issues such as patient factors, laboratory environment, and other challenges in performing this test can improve the patient experience and clinical utility, as well as the resultant treatment outcomes of urodynamics. This chapter will outline some methods to optimize this study under these difficult conditions.

Keywords

Pelvic Floor Stress Urinary Incontinence Pelvic Organ Prolapse Pelvic Floor Muscle Pelvic Floor Muscle Training 
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.
    Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Mattisasson A, Pesce A, Spangberg A, Sterling A, Zinner N, van Kerrebroeck P. Good urodynamic practices: urofolowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:261–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kocabas P, Khorshid L. A comparison of special gynaecological garment and music in reducing the anxiety related to gynaecological examination. J Clin Nurs. 2011;21:791–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winters C, Dmochowski R, Goldman H, Hendron C, Kobeski K, Kraus S, Lemacks G, Nitti V, Rovner E, Wein A. Urodynamic studies in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2464–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolf JS, Bennett C, Dmochowski R, Hollenbeck B, Pearle M, Schaeffer A. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. 2008. Available from the American Urological Association Education and Research with full text: http://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Antimicrobial-Prophylaxis.pdf
  5. 5.
    Siderias J, Guadio F, Singer AJ. Comparison of topical anesthetic and lubricants prior to urethral catheterization in males: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(6):703–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung C, Chu M, Paoloni R, O’Brien M, Demel T. Comparison of lignocaine and water-based lubricating gels for female urethral catheterization: a randomized control trial. Emerg Med Australas. 2007;19(4):315–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Villanueva C, Hemstreet G. The approach to difficult urethral catheterization among urology residents in the United States. Int Braz J Urol. 2010;36(6):710–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newman D, Wilson MM. Review of intermittent catheterization and current best practices. Urol Nurs. 2011;31(1):12–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neurogenic bladder discussion, SUFU Winter meeting, Las Vegas, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing EducationEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations