Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Good Urodynamic Practice (good + urodynamic_practice)
Selected AbstractsGood urodynamic practices: Uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies,,NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, Issue 3 2002Werner Schäfer Abstract This is the first report of the International Continence Society (ICS) on the development of comprehensive guidelines for Good Urodynamic Practice for the measurement, quality control, and documentation of urodynamic investigations in both clinical and research environments. This report focuses on the most common urodynamics examinations; uroflowmetry, pressure recording during filling cystometry, and combined pressure,flow studies. The basic aspects of good urodynamic practice are discussed and a strategy for urodynamic measurement, equipment set-up and configuration, signal testing, plausibility controls, pattern recognition, and artifact correction are proposed. The problems of data analysis are mentioned only when they are relevant in the judgment of data quality. In general, recommendations are made for one specific technique. This does not imply that this technique is the only one possible. Rather, it means that this technique is well-established, and gives good results when used with the suggested standards of good urodynamic practice. Neurourol. Urodynam. 21:261,274, 2002. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Quality control in urodynamics: a review of urodynamic traces from one centreBJU INTERNATIONAL, Issue 3 2003J. Sullivan OBJECTIVE To investigate quality control in our unit and to enable other units to compare their results, as experience from central reviews of urodynamic traces for multicentre trials has suggested that poor quality control is common. PATIENTS AND METHODS All consecutive male urodynamic tests conducted over 1 year were reviewed. A list of criteria to assess the quality of the records was devised, based upon International Continence Society guidelines on ,good urodynamic practice', and on other sources. Eligible traces were analysed for aspects of quality control, e.g. baseline pressures and coughs to test pressure transmission. The data were analysed to establish how often quality criteria were met, and identify areas for improvement. RESULTS In 100 eligible traces, the baseline detrusor pressure was 0,10 cmH2O in 86, and , 5 to +10 cmH2O in 94%. Baseline intravesical and abdominal pressure were 30,50 cmH2O in 68% and 73% of cases, respectively. Coughs were present before filling in 94%, during filling in 95%, before voiding in 72% and after voiding in 87% of cases. The cough-test frequency was sufficient in 30% of traces. In 11 the intravesical pressure line fell out during voiding. CONCLUSION Most of the traces assessed met the quality criteria defined, but significant defects were not uncommon. Some of the problems identified suggest areas of urodynamic technique which should be studied in more detail. We intend to modify our quality control practices, and hope to show an improvement on re-audit. We hope that other urodynamic departments will be encouraged to review their practice, and we aim to improve our results. [source] | ||||||||||