Barnes D G, Ralph D, Hill P D, Lewis C A, Shaw P J, Worth P H
Institute of Urology, St Peter's Hospitals, London.
Br J Urol. 1991 Aug;68(2):138-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1991.tb15281.x.
Eight commercially available urodynamic machines from 6 major manufacturers (Aspen Medical, Dantec, Electro-Medical Supplies (EMS), Uro-gyn, Ormed and Wiest) were assessed for accuracy, construction and user-friendliness. There was less than 10% inaccuracy with regard to fill volume, void rate and pressure measurements. The Wiest 6000 plus system was between 11 and 14% inaccurate during voided volume measurement and other systems were less than 10% inaccurate. User-friendliness was assessed during routine cystometry and is mainly dependent on the software supplied with the equipment. The merits and faults of each urodynamic system with regard to performing a urodynamic investigation, running a urodynamic service and data management are compared with an "ideal" urodynamic system.
对来自6家主要制造商（阿斯彭医疗、丹泰克、电子医疗用品公司（EMS）、泌尿妇科、奥姆德和威斯特）的8种市售尿动力学仪器进行了准确性、结构和用户友好性评估。在充盈量、排尿率和压力测量方面，误差小于10%。威斯特6000 plus系统在排尿量测量期间的误差为11%至14%，其他系统的误差小于10%。在常规膀胱测压期间评估了用户友好性，其主要取决于设备所配备的软件。将每个尿动力学系统在进行尿动力学检查、开展尿动力学服务和数据管理方面的优缺点与一个“理想”尿动力学系统进行了比较。
