- Email: [email protected]
Comparing a novel hand held device (Peritron+) to standard urodynamics in measuring intravesical pressure
32nd Annual EAU Congress, 24-28 March 2017, London, United Kingdom
1123
Comparing a novel hand held device (Peritron+) to standard urodynamics in measuring intravesical pressure Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e1956
Radomski S.1, Ruzhynsky V.1, Bitzos S.2, Goping I.2 1
Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Dept. of Urology, Toronto, Canada, 2Laborie Medical Technologies Canada ULC, Clinical Research, Mississauga, Canada INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: Neurogenic voiding dysfunction can lead to upper tract damage and renal failure due to high storage pressures if not treated. Urodynamic testing is used to assess such patients for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. However, urodynamic assessment is costly, timeconsuming and is not available to all clinicians. Peritron+ is a simple handheld device which can be attached to a catheter to measure intravesical pressures (Pves). This device could be used in the office by clinicians or at home by patients to monitor intravesical pressures. Our goal was to assess if Pves recorded by standard multichannel urodynamics (UD) are comparable to those recorded by the Peritron+ in the sitting and supine positions. MATERIAL & METHODS: IRB approval was granted and all patients signed an informed consent. Patients who had voiding dysfunction and had an indication for non-video UD were included in the trial. All the patients underwent simultaneous non-video UD and Peritron+ measurements in the supine and sitting positions. Specifically, Pves were recorded for both methods at volumes of saline infused at 50, 100, 200 ml, maximum capacity and post-void for the supine and sitting positions. A failure of the Peritron+ was considered to be a discrepancy of Pves values >3 cmH2O between Peritron+ and UD recordings. Two-way ANOVA was used to assess for statistical significance. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Ten female patients mean age 51 years old (range 31-73 years) were enrolled in the study. In all instances, at volumes of 50, 100, 200 ml, maximum capacity and post-void the difference in Pves measurements between Peritron+ and UD were all ≤3 cmH2O. Furthermore, this did not change between Peritron+ and UD regardless of position. There were no adverse events that occurred and there were no malfunctions of the Peritron+ device during measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Peritron+ handheld device accurately assessed Pves at different intravesical volumes in the supine and sitting positions when compared to UD measurements. There were no adverse events during the study. The Peritron+ is a simple and safe device which can be used in the office by the clinician and at home by a patient or caregiver to assess and monitor intravesical pressure. This may be of real value in patients with neurogenic bladders at high risk of upper tract deterioration.
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e1956 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
1123
Comparing a novel hand held device (Peritron+) to standard urodynamics in measuring intravesical pressure Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e1956
Radomski S.1, Ruzhynsky V.1, Bitzos S.2, Goping I.2 1
Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, Dept. of Urology, Toronto, Canada, 2Laborie Medical Technologies Canada ULC, Clinical Research, Mississauga, Canada INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES: Neurogenic voiding dysfunction can lead to upper tract damage and renal failure due to high storage pressures if not treated. Urodynamic testing is used to assess such patients for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. However, urodynamic assessment is costly, timeconsuming and is not available to all clinicians. Peritron+ is a simple handheld device which can be attached to a catheter to measure intravesical pressures (Pves). This device could be used in the office by clinicians or at home by patients to monitor intravesical pressures. Our goal was to assess if Pves recorded by standard multichannel urodynamics (UD) are comparable to those recorded by the Peritron+ in the sitting and supine positions. MATERIAL & METHODS: IRB approval was granted and all patients signed an informed consent. Patients who had voiding dysfunction and had an indication for non-video UD were included in the trial. All the patients underwent simultaneous non-video UD and Peritron+ measurements in the supine and sitting positions. Specifically, Pves were recorded for both methods at volumes of saline infused at 50, 100, 200 ml, maximum capacity and post-void for the supine and sitting positions. A failure of the Peritron+ was considered to be a discrepancy of Pves values >3 cmH2O between Peritron+ and UD recordings. Two-way ANOVA was used to assess for statistical significance. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Ten female patients mean age 51 years old (range 31-73 years) were enrolled in the study. In all instances, at volumes of 50, 100, 200 ml, maximum capacity and post-void the difference in Pves measurements between Peritron+ and UD were all ≤3 cmH2O. Furthermore, this did not change between Peritron+ and UD regardless of position. There were no adverse events that occurred and there were no malfunctions of the Peritron+ device during measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Peritron+ handheld device accurately assessed Pves at different intravesical volumes in the supine and sitting positions when compared to UD measurements. There were no adverse events during the study. The Peritron+ is a simple and safe device which can be used in the office by the clinician and at home by a patient or caregiver to assess and monitor intravesical pressure. This may be of real value in patients with neurogenic bladders at high risk of upper tract deterioration.
Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(3);e1956 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)