Suppr超能文献

尿动力学中的质量控制:来自一个中心的尿动力学记录综述

Quality control in urodynamics: a review of urodynamic traces from one centre.

作者信息

Sullivan J, Lewis P, Howell S, Williams T, Shepherd A M, Abrams P

机构信息

Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

BJU Int. 2003 Feb;91(3):201-7. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04054.x.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate quality control in our unit and to enable other units to compare their results, as experience from central reviews of urodynamic traces for multicentre trials has suggested that poor quality control is common.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All consecutive male urodynamic tests conducted over 1 year were reviewed. A list of criteria to assess the quality of the records was devised, based upon International Continence Society guidelines on "good urodynamic practice", and on other sources. Eligible traces were analysed for aspects of quality control, e.g. baseline pressures and coughs to test pressure transmission. The data were analysed to establish how often quality criteria were met, and identify areas for improvement.

RESULTS

In 100 eligible traces, the baseline detrusor pressure was 0-10 cmH2O in 86, and - 5 to +10 cmH2O in 94%. Baseline intravesical and abdominal pressure were 30-50 cmH2O in 68% and 73% of cases, respectively. Coughs were present before filling in 94%, during filling in 95%, before voiding in 72% and after voiding in 87% of cases. The cough-test frequency was sufficient in 30% of traces. In 11 the intravesical pressure line fell out during voiding.

CONCLUSION

Most of the traces assessed met the quality criteria defined, but significant defects were not uncommon. Some of the problems identified suggest areas of urodynamic technique which should be studied in more detail. We intend to modify our quality control practices, and hope to show an improvement on re-audit. We hope that other urodynamic departments will be encouraged to review their practice, and we aim to improve our results.

摘要

目的

鉴于多中心试验尿动力学检查结果的中央评审经验表明质量控制不佳的情况很常见,本研究旨在调查本单位的质量控制情况,并使其他单位能够比较其结果。

患者与方法

回顾了一年内进行的所有连续男性尿动力学检查。根据国际尿失禁学会关于“良好尿动力学实践”的指南及其他资料,制定了一份评估记录质量的标准清单。对符合条件的检查结果进行质量控制方面的分析,例如基线压力和咳嗽试验以测试压力传导。分析数据以确定质量标准的达标频率,并找出需要改进的方面。

结果

在100份符合条件的检查结果中,86份的基线逼尿肌压力为0 - 10 cmH₂O,94%的基线逼尿肌压力为 - 5至 +10 cmH₂O。68%的病例基线膀胱内压为30 - 50 cmH₂O,73%的病例基线腹压为30 - 50 cmH₂O。94%的病例在充盈前有咳嗽,95%的病例在充盈期间有咳嗽,72%的病例在排尿前有咳嗽,87%的病例在排尿后有咳嗽。30%的检查结果咳嗽试验频率足够。11份检查结果在排尿时膀胱内压力线脱落。

结论

大多数评估的检查结果符合所定义的质量标准,但明显缺陷并不罕见。所发现的一些问题提示了尿动力学技术中应更详细研究的领域。我们打算修改我们的质量控制措施,并希望在重新审核时有所改进。我们希望鼓励其他尿动力学科室审查其做法,我们的目标是改善我们的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验