| 杨禹同,张少华,孙新惠,等.不同测压导管的尿动力学检查在压力性尿失禁中的对比研究[J].安徽医药,2026,30(2):287-291. |
| 不同测压导管的尿动力学检查在压力性尿失禁中的对比研究 |
| The comparison of urodynamics with different catheters in stress urinary incontinence |
| |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2026.02.014 |
| 中文关键词: 尿失禁，压力性 尿流动力学 液体测压导管 气体测压导管 逼尿肌等容收缩试验 |
| 英文关键词: Urinary incontinence, stress Urodynamics Water filed catheter Air charged catheter Detrusor isovolumetric test |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金资助项目( U1904208) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 420 |
| 全文下载次数: 224 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的对比使用气体测压导管( ACC)、液体测压导管( WFC)的尿动力学检查在女性压力性尿失禁( SUI)中的结果。方法选取 2021年 10月至 2023年 10月新乡医学院第一附属医院收治的 51例临床诊断为 SUI的女性病人，均完成了两种测压导管的尿动力学检查(包括自由尿流率测定、储尿期膀胱测压、排尿期压力—流率测定、漏尿点压力测定、逼尿肌等容收缩试验)，同一病人采用随机数字表法决定使用导管的顺序，比较使用 ACC和 WFC的尿动力学检查结果。结果使用两种测压导管时最大尿流率、起始感受容量、最大感受容量、膀胱壁顺应性、残余尿量，均差异无统计学意义( P>0.05)。在储尿期与排尿期， Bland-Altman图显示 ACC方式获得的压力参数与 WFC具有一致性。但是使用 ACC时储尿末期平均腹压［(30.2±8.6)cmH2O比(24.2±7.9)cmH2O，(1 cmH2O=0.098 kPa)］、储尿末期平均膀胱内压［( 32.0±9.2)cmH2O比( 26.9±8.0)cmH2O］、漏尿点腹压［( 84.1±22.4)cmH2O比( 76.0±20.4)cmH2O］高于 WFC，最大尿流率时逼尿肌压力［(19.7±6.6)cmH2O比( 21.9±5.8)cmH2O］、逼尿肌最大压力［(48.2±14.7)cmH2O比( 51.7±14.3)cmH2O］低于 WFC(均 P<0.05)。结论两种测压导管行尿动力学检查获得的非压力参数数值相似，压力参数具有一致性，但具体压力值仍有差异。 ACC与 WFC不可相互替换，临床需早日建立符合 ACC的 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the urodynamics results of using water filed catheter(WFC) and air charged catheter(ACC) in fe-male patients with stress urinary incontinence(SUI).Methods Fifty-one female SUI patients in the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinx-iang Medical College from October 2021 to October 2023 were selected for the research. Urodynamics examinations with two types ofcatheters including flow rate, cystometrogram, pressure-flow test,valsalva leak point pressure and detrusor isovolumetric test were per-formed in all patients. Patients were randomized to determine the order of catheter and then urodynamics findings were compared be-tween ACC and WFC.Results The Qmax, first sensation of bladder filling, maximum cystometric capacity, bladder compliance and re-sidual volume of two types of catheters had no statistically significant difference(P>0.05). During the storage and voiding periods, Bland-Altman plots illustrated high consistency between pressure values measured via WFC and ACC.However,the mean abdominalpressure [(30.2±8.6)cmH2O vs. (24.2±7.9)cmH2O，(1 cmH2O=0.098 kPa)], mean intravesical pressure [(32.0±9.2)cmH2O vs. (26.9±8.0) cmH2O] and valsalva leak point pressure [(84.1±22.4)cmH2O vs. (76.0±20.4)cmH2O] measured by ACC were higher than that of WFC. The detrusor pressure [(19.7±6.6)cmH2O vs. (21.9±5.8)cmH2O] at the time of maximum flow rate and maximum detrusor pressure [(48.2±14.7)cmH2O vs. (51.7±14.3)cmH2O] measured by ACC were lower than that of WFC.The pressure values of the two catheters were significantly different(P<0.05).Conclusions Non-pressure parameters obtained by urodynamics with WFC and ACC are similar,and pressure parameters are consistent, but there are still differences in the specific pressure values. WFC and ACC are not inter-change-able, and the clinic urge to establish diagnostic guidelines that are consistent with ACC. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
