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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Newman D, Wilson MM. Review of intermittent catheterization and current best practices. Urol Nurs. 2011;31(1):12–48.
Neurogenic bladder discussion, SUFU Winter meeting, Las Vegas, 2012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Franklin, L.E. (2015). Optimizing the Study. In: Rovner, E., Koski, M. (eds) Rapid and Practical Interpretation of Urodynamics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1764-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1764-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1763-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1764-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)