Urodynamics quality in southwest China: a multicenter random study
10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20210512-00265
- VernacularTitle:西南地区尿动力学质量回顾：多中心随机抽样调查结果分析
- Author:
Xiao ZENG
1
;
Jiapei WU
;
Deyi LUO
;
Qiwu WANG
;
Kai LIU
;
Peng WANG
;
Juan WEN
;
Yongchang PU
;
Hong WU
;
Xiao XIAO
;
Zhenxing HU
;
Qiuyue ZHONG
;
Hong SHEN
Author Information
1. 四川大学华西医院泌尿外科 四川大学华西医院泌尿外科研究所，成都 610041
- Keywords:
Urodynamics;
Multicenter;
Random sampling;
Quality review
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2021;42(6):455-461
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To retrospectively analyze the urodynamics quality in Southwest China, and find out the main issues of urodynamics quality in Southwest China and try to find out the improvement ways.Methods:In this study, a two-stage sampling method was used.In the first stage, 10 medical institutions in Southwest China were selected by cluster sampling from March to June, 2020.In the second stage, according to the development of UDS in Southwest China, the sample size estimation formula was adopted, and the loss of follow-up rate in reports extraction was considered, the initial sample size was 350. As the workload of UDS in the 10 medical institutions involved in the study was equivalent, 35 urodynamics traces from each medical institution were selected. The initial samples should also meet the inclusion criteria: ①patients with clear medical history and complete clinical data; ②UDS traces were clear; ③UDS system was water filled system; ④age>18, and 150 urodynamic traces were included in the final study. We evaluated the quality of enrolled urodynamics traces, and the quality evaluation standard according to the guidelines established by the International Continence Society (ICS). The evaluation conducted by two independent urologist with more than 10 years working experience. Artifacts were divided into non-technical artifacts: abnormal abdominal pressure changes, urine volume <150 ml when did the uroflow test, and technical artifacts: non-standard zero setting, fail to record all urodynamics parameters, baseline drift, catheter displacement, misjudgment of detrusor physiological contraction and detrusor overactive in voiding phase, misjudgment between detrusor overactive and bladder low compliance in filling phase.Results:non-technical artifacts: 32 cases were found abnormal abdominal pressure changes (21.3%), 21 cases (14.0%) were found when did the uroflow test the urine volume <150 ml, and technical artifacts: Non-standard zero setting in 28 cases (18.7%), fail to record all urodynamics parameters in 8 cases, baseline drift in 16 cases, catheter displacement in 9 cases and misjudgment of detrusor physiological contraction and detrusor overactive in voiding phase in 12 cases, misjudgment between detrusor overactive and bladder low compliance in filling phase in 24 cases (16.0%).Conclusions:At present, the urodynamics quality in Southwest China need to be improved. The main issues were that the operator didn’t obey the basic operation and quality control process, and the operator did not have enough basic knowledge of urodynamics. It can be improved by strictly carry out the operation standard of UDS, identifying and correcting artifacts in time, and promoting the standardized urodynamic training courses.
