The effect of a 6 Fr catheter in women: Are they obstructive?

Authors

  • Patrick Richard Department of Urology, Sherbrooke University, Québec, Canada
  • Nydia Icaza Ordonez Department of Urology, Sherbrooke University, Québec, Canada
  • Le Mai Tu Department of Urology, Sherbrooke University, Québec, Canada

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1320

Keywords:

Bladder outlet obstruction, catheterization, free-flow studies, pressure-flow studies, uroflowmetry

Abstract

Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate the effect of a 6 Fr transurethral catheter on the uroflowmetry and to assess whether it potentially contributes to the bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) in women.

Methods: We reviewed the charts of 1367 women who underwent an urodynamic study. We included patients with a non-invasive free-flow study (NIFFS) and pressure flow study (PFS) performed through a 6 Fr double lumen transurethral catheter.

Results: In total, 120 women met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Mean maximal flow rate (Qmax) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the NIFFS (27.2±11.1 mL/s) than in the PFS (19.3±10.6 mL/s). The mean difference between both Qmax was 7.9±12.0 mL/s. Of these women, 92.3% (24/26) with a Qmax <12 mL/s during PFS were found to have a Qmax ≥12 mL/s during the NIFFS. Ten of the 72 women with an available Pdet.Qmax were deemed to have a BOO according to the PFS and all of them had a Qmax >12 mL/s during the NIFFS. Of the 10 patients, only 2 reported obstructive symptoms.

Conclusion: The presence of 6 Fr transurethral catheters alters the PFS and results in a significant reduction of the Qmax in patients who voided more than 250 mL. We believe that NIFFS should be performed in all patients before any urethral manipulation to lower a possible overdiagnosis of BOO and findings should always be correlated to clinical symptoms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2013-06-12

How to Cite

Richard, P., Ordonez, N. I., & Tu, L. M. (2013). The effect of a 6 Fr catheter in women: Are they obstructive?. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 7(5-6), 185–8. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1320

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 5-6 (2013): CUAJ June 2013

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.