title: A quantitative comparison between free uroflow variables and urodynamic data, and the effect of the size of urodynamic catheters on its interpretation.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effect of the urodynamic catheter on the urinary flow rate and residual volume in various urodynamic diagnoses, and compare the outcome when using a smaller catheter, as the effect of this catheter on free uroflow variables is mostly studied in patients with bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and little is known about its effect in other urodynamic diagnoses.
  
  
  METHODS
  In all, 319 men undergoing a pressure-flow study (PFS) with a 5 F filling and 5 F measuring bladder catheter were subdivided into three groups based on a urodynamic diagnosis, i.e. normal PFS (group 1), BOO (group 2) and detrusor underactivity (DU, group 3). Another group (4) comprised 61 patients who had a PFS with the filling catheter removed before the voiding phase. The effect of the catheters on the maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and the postvoid residual volume (PVR) was analysed statistically and compared among the groups. We also compared the free-flow variables with the clinical and urodynamic variables.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Groups 1-3 (with two catheters) had a significantly lower Qmax and higher PVR than those voiding with one catheter (group 4). The reduction in Qmax was highest in group 3 (41.9%) and least in group 2 (21%). Group 4 showed no significant change in Qmax in cases with BOO and a normal PFS but a significant decline in those with DU (19.6%). The PVR was positively associated with the bladder capacity and negatively with detrusor contractility, but no association with a urodynamic diagnosis of BOO or any specific symptom.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Detrusor contractility was the strongest predictor of the obstructive effect caused by the catheter. This study justifies the use of a single 5 F catheter at the time of voiding, although that can also cause a reduction in flow in patients with DU.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: Adittya K
authors.initials: AK
authors.lastname: Sharma
authors.affiliation: Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: Ali
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Poonawala
authors.affiliation: Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: G N
authors.initials: GN
authors.lastname: Girish
authors.affiliation: Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: A J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Kamath
authors.affiliation: Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Keshavmurthy
authors.affiliation: Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: N H
authors.initials: NH
authors.lastname: Nagaraja
authors.affiliation: Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: G K
authors.initials: GK
authors.lastname: Venkatesh
authors.affiliation: Institute of Nephro-Urology, Victoria Hospital Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: C S
authors.initials: CS
authors.lastname: Ratkal
keywords: DU, detrusor underactivity; Free uroflow; LUT, lower urinary tract; Lower urinary tract dysfunction; PFS, pressure-flow study; PVR, postvoid residual volume; Qmax, maximum urinary flow rate; QmaxP, Qmax on PFS; UDS, urodynamic study; Urodynamic catheter