Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Neurogenic Voiding Dysfunction (PD07)1 May 2024PD07-02 CLINICAL TESTING OF A NOVEL WIRELESS AMBULATORY URODYNAMIC SYSTEM IN PATIENTS WITH NEUROGENIC BLADDER Michael D. Gross, Madison Lyon, Kevin Lewis, Mohamed Elazab, Tyler Tevis, Steve Majerus, Ly Hoang-Roberts, and Margot S. Damaser Michael D. GrossMichael D. Gross , Madison LyonMadison Lyon , Kevin LewisKevin Lewis , Mohamed ElazabMohamed Elazab , Tyler TevisTyler Tevis , Steve MajerusSteve Majerus , Ly Hoang-RobertsLy Hoang-Roberts , and Margot S. DamaserMargot S. Damaser View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008552.16893.70.02AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urodynamics (UDS) is an important diagnostic tool but is often mired by patient discomfort due to catheters and retrograde filling. Our novel wireless device (Figure 1) enables accurate catheter-free wireless real-time measurement of intravesical pressure in pre-selected patients. We sought to broaden testing to those with neurogenic bladder who may experience discomfort or detrusor overactivity associated with UDS. We hypothesize the device will be safe, well-tolerated, and capture relevant urodynamic parameters in neurogenic bladder patients. METHODS: Patients presenting for UDS with neurogenic bladder secondary to multiple sclerosis were included. All patients underwent a full UDS testing cycle after which the device was inserted and a second UDS cycle performed. Catheters were removed and patients then ambulated with the device in place for an additional void. A post-procedure urine culture and heavy metal assay were obtained, and patient comfort was assessed at multiple time points. RESULTS: Ten patients were recruited and included in the analysis. Median pain did not differ pre and post-study (p=0.845). Ambulation with the device alone was associated with less discomfort than the initial UDS (p=0.040). Compared with the pre-test uroflow, the post-void residual was higher in both the first and second UDS cycles (p=0.020 and p=0.018 respectively). In contrast, there was no significant difference between the post-void residual on baseline uroflow and with the device in situ during ambulation without UDS catheters (p=0.081). Notably, two patients were unable to void with the catheters in place but then voided after catheter removal with the device in place. The device captured 98% of all urodynamic events and 100% of all detrusor overactivity. No patient experienced a post-procedure urinary tract infection or had detectable heavy metals in the urine. CONCLUSIONS: The device captures intravesical pressure with high fidelity (Figure 1). It is well tolerated and associated with less discomfort compared to UDS. The device demonstrates additional utility in patients with borderline obstruction or "shy bladders" who cannot void during UDS. This device offers a promising alternative to obtaining critical information provided by UDS in a less invasive, more physiologic manner. Download PPT Source of Funding: The Research Projects Committee of the Cleveland Clinic provided support for this work. No external funding was used © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e167 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Michael D. Gross More articles by this author Madison Lyon More articles by this author Kevin Lewis More articles by this author Mohamed Elazab More articles by this author Tyler Tevis More articles by this author Steve Majerus More articles by this author Ly Hoang-Roberts More articles by this author Margot S. Damaser More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Gross et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: