Pressure flow study: a useful diagnostic test of female XXXX .

@entity1 @entity1690 @entity322 @entity13667 @entity6802
AIMS: To compare pressure flow parameters in the different urodynamic diagnoses in @entity1 with @entity6802 ( @entity6802 ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Urodynamic traces of @entity1 with @entity6802 were prospectively studied. Detrusor pressures at the start of flow (ODP), detrusor pressure at peak flow rate (PdetQmax), peak flow rate (Qmax) and detrusor pressure at the end of flow ( @entity13667 ) were measured and compared with different urodynamic diagnoses. RESULTS: Six hundred and twenty one @entity1 were prospectively investigated between September 2000 and February 2002. Only 85% (529/621) of @entity1 had good quality pressure flow studies and was included in the study. @entity1 with detrusor overactivity have higher ODP, @entity13667 and PdetQmax than @entity1 with urethral @entity1690 . All these pressure flow parameters are significantly lower in @entity1 with urethral @entity1690 than continent @entity1 (P < 0.05, Bonferroni test). Qmax was significantly greater in @entity1 with urodynamic stress @entity322 compared to @entity1 who had detrusor overactivity (P < 0.05, Bonferroni test). @entity1 with mixed @entity322 had pressure flow parameters intermediate between @entity1 with detrusor overactivity and those with urodynamic stress @entity322 . CONCLUSIONS: Pressure flow parameters appear to be useful urodynamic tools in the evaluation of @entity1 with @entity6802 as they help the clinician in assessing the urethral and detrusor function.
