Comparing a novel hand held device (Peritron+) to standard urodynamics in measuring intravesical pressure. Issue 3 (11th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ruzhynsky, Vladimir A.; Bitzos, Stephanie; Goping, Ing; Radomski, Sidney B.
• Is Part Of: Neurourology and urodynamics. Volume 37:Issue 3(2018:Mar.)
• Page Start: 1002
• Page End: 1006
• Publication Date: 2017-10-11
• Subjects: catheterization -- intravesical pressure -- monitoring -- neurogenic bladder -- portable -- safe bladder pressure -- urodynamics; Urinary organs -- Periodicals; Urodynamics -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.23373
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0733-2467

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: Peritron+ is a new handheld device, which can be attached to a urethral catheter to measure intravesical pressures (Pves). The goal of this study was to assess if Pves recorded by standard urodynamics (UDs) are comparable to those recorded by the Peritron+. Methods: Patients with voiding dysfunction and an indication for UD underwent measurement of Pves with nonvideo UD and Peritron+. Pves were recorded at volumes of 50, 100, and 200 mL for the supine and sitting positions. A failure of the Peritron+ was considered to be a discrepancy of Pves values >3 cmH2 O 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, were enrolled in the study. The difference in Pves measurements between Peritron+ and UD were ≤3 cmH2 O at all bladder volumes measured in a supine and sitting positions. There were no adverse events and there were no malfunctions of the Peritron+ device during the study. Conclusions: Peritron+ handheld device accurately assessed Pves at different intravesical volumes when compared to UD measurements. The Peritron+ is a simple and safe device, which can be used in the office by a clinician and at home by a patient to monitor Pves and help to select patients who may require standard UD re‐evaluation. This will be a valuable tool in managing patients with neurogenic and nonneurogenic bladders who are at a risk of upper urinary tract deterioration.