Skip to main content
Log in

Factors causing differences in voiding parameters between conventional and ambulatory urodynamics

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Urological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Voiding parameter values measured with ambulatory urodynamic monitoring (AM) are generally found to be different from those measured with conventional cystometry (CMG). The reason for this is unclear, but might be related to differences in the voided volume. To verify this hypothesis, we compared voidings from female patients at an initial bladder volume that was close to the modal volume (that is, the volume most often voided by the patient as derived from frequency/volume charts) with voidings at maximum cystometric capacity during a routine video urodynamic examination. A first group of 35 patients voided at the modal volume before they did at capacity. The order was reversed in a second group of 12 patients. The dependence of the voiding parameters on the voided volume and the order of the measurements were examined. It was found that the maximum flow rate depended significantly on the voided volume, but the associated detrusor pressure did not. Urethral resistance and bladder contraction strength were not volume dependent either. It was concluded that the differences between AM and CMG cannot be explained from possible differences in the voided volume.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: 23 August 1999 / Accepted: 16 December 1999

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Groen, J., van Mastrigt, R. & Bosch, R. Factors causing differences in voiding parameters between conventional and ambulatory urodynamics. Urological Research 28, 128–131 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s002400050150

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s002400050150

Navigation