Evaluate the effectiveness of three methods of measurement catheter fixation during urodynamic study: a single-center small sample size study

Evaluate the effectiveness of three methods of measurement catheter fixation during urodynamic study: a single-center small sample size study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Evaluate the effectiveness of three methods of measurement catheter fixation during urodynamic study: a single-center small sample size study Xiao Zeng, Zhihui Huang, Jie Zhang, Hong Shen, De-yi Luo, Tao Jin This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3920646/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objectives This study in order to provide better evidence for the selection of fixation methods for measurement catheters during clinical UDS . Methods We selected patients who had undergone urodynamic examinations at the XXX between April and June 2023. These patients were chosen based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria established for the study. We observed the effectiveness of three different fixation methods: 1.Waterproof Tape Fixation(group1) 2. Patient-Manual Fixation(group2) 3. Silk Thread Fixation(group3). Results There were 28 patients enrolled in each group, and the mean ages were: 62.82 ± 15.59, 66.14 ± 8.63, 63 ± 16.78 years, respectively. MCC, BC, Qmax, Pdet.Qmax, BCI and BOO in 3 different catheter fixation methods had no statistical difference (P > 0.05). The total incidence of catheter displacement in group1, group2 and group3 was 35.71%, 0, 14.29%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the Comfort-B scale of Group 1 and Group 2, Group 2 and Group 3 (p < 0.000). Regarding the visual analogue scores, there was a statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2, Group 2 and Group 3 (p < 0.000). Conclusions We conducted a preliminary verification and found that three different methods of catheter fixation during UDS had no significant impact on the test results. However, it is important to note that patient-manual fixation, as well as the other two fixation methods, may result in decreased comfort and increased pain for patients during the UDS process. Clinical trial registration : ChiCTR2300068280. 2023-5-15 Urodynamic study Fixation methods Waterproof tape fixation Patient-manual fixation Silk thread fixation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction The urodynamic study (UDS) plays a crucial role in evaluating the lower urinary tract (LUT) function, integrating hydrodynamics and electrophysiology theory 1 . Through UDS, we can precisely quantify functional and pathophysiological changes in the bladder and urethra 2 . The core principle of UDS involves using two pressure measurement catheters: one inserted into the bladder via the urethra to measure intravesical pressure (Pves) and another inserted into the rectum through the anus to measure abdominal pressure (Pabd) 2,3 . These measurements are then utilized by a computer system to calculate real-time detrusor pressure (Pdet) using the formula: Pdet = Pves - Pabd. Ensuring high-quality acquisition and conduction of Pves and Pabd pressure signals is crucial for obtaining reliable clinical UDS diagnoses 4,5 . Recent studies have underscored the importance of UDS quality in various contexts 4,6,7,8 . Particularly, two recent cross-sectional studies conducted in multi-center settings in mainland China and Southwest China focused on UDS quality, revealing the presence of diverse artifacts during procedures. The multi-center study in Southwest China found an overall incidence rate of catheter displacement to be 6%, while in mainland China, the incidence rate was 5.3% 4,9 . Although both studies suggested that catheter displacement might not be the most prevalent artifact during UDS, it's crucial to acknowledge that this specific artifact can significantly impact UDS quality. For example, if the Pves measurement catheter becomes displaced during the filling phase, it can alter the Pves signal, subsequently affecting the accuracy of the Pdet signal. In the urodynamic study process, various methods exist for fixing measurement catheters. Currently, the prevalent approach in many centers involves using waterproof tape. However, it's noteworthy that alternative methods have been reported in the literature. For instance, Gleason et al. in 1980 and Konda in 1987 described using silk thread to fix urodynamic measurement catheters 10,11 . Moreover, in some centers, patients may be allowed to hold the UDS measurement catheters themselves during the procedure 12 . Regarding the "Good Urodynamic Practice (GUP)" developed by the International Continence Society (ICS) is considered authoritative in the field. In the "7.5/ Transurethral catheter" section, specific recommendations for the fixation of UDS measurement catheters are not provided 2 . Despite these practices being common, the available literature on this specific topic is limited, with only one article identified through a search of mainstream international academic databases. This study was designed to contribute robust evidence for selecting optimal fixation methods for measurement catheters during real-world clinical UDS processes. We specifically investigated the effectiveness of three commonly used UDS measurement catheter fixation methods. Methods and materials 2.1 Research Inclusion Criteria: Patients included in the study must meet the following criteria:1.Age: Participants must be more than 18 years. 2.Comprehension and Cooperation: Patients should possess the ability to understand the examination process and cooperate with the procedure. 3.Hand Function:Participants should have normal hand function to ensure their capability to handle the catheter. 4.Intact Skin: The skin on the abdomen, perineum, and thigh should be devoid of any lesions or abnormalities. 5.Allergy History: The patient reported no history of allergy to fixed tape, silk thread, or iodophor. 2.2 Research Exclusion Criteria: In addition to the criteria mentioned in 2.1, patients were excluded from the study if they met any of the following conditions:1.Urinary Tract Infection: Current diagnosis of urinary tract infection. 2.Urethral Injury or Urethral Stricture: History of urethral injury or urethral stricture. 3.Post-Rectal Surgery: Underwent rectal surgery in the past. 4.Abnormal Coagulation and Immune Function: Abnormalities in coagulation or immune function. 2.3 Research Protocol: In this study, we selected patients who had undergone urodynamic examinations at XXX between April and June 2023. During the observation period, we screened all patients who underwent urodynamic examinations within one month. Out of the 118 patients examined during this period, 34 did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. The final study included 84 patients, and we divided them into three groups on average. The study included three groups, each employing a distinct catheter fixation method during UDS, defined as follows: 1. Waterproof Tape Fixation (group1)(Fig. 1 .g,h,i); 2. Patient-Manual Fixation (group2)(Fig. 1 .e,f); 3. Silk Thread Fixation (group3)(Fig. 1 .a,b,c,d). 2.4 Urodynamic Study Process and Catheter Fixation Methods: 2.4.1 Urodynamic Study Process: Pressure flow studies were conducted in the sitting position using Laborie Triton equipment with air-charged catheters (Laborie & Co., Aquarius TT Triton), following GUP guidelines 1,2 . The infusion medium was sterile normal saline at 37℃, with a filling rate of 61ml/min for patients with non-neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NNBD) and 11ml/min for patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NBD). 2.4.2 Measurement catheters fixation methods: 1.Waterproof Tape Fixation: For female patients, a waterproof tape (Transpore TM ,3M) was wrapped around the Pves catheter, with tape ends attached to the abdomen. In male patients, the waterproof tape was fixed on the penis, and similarly, around the Pabd catheter with ends fixed to the thigh skin. This method aimed to secure catheters in place using waterproof tape. 2.Patient-Manual Fixation: Patients were instructed to hold their catheters, and catheters were taped to the patient 11 . 3.Silk Thread Fixation: A silk thread (0/3.5 Metric, MERSILK SA86G, Ethicon) was tied around the catheter. Two ends of this suture extended along the penile skin, with adhesive tape encircling the middle or the base of the penis to fix them in male patients. For female patients, the other ends of the thread extended obliquely on a diagonal line 12 (Fig. 1 ). 2.5 Effectiveness Evaluation Index: One crucial evaluation index throughout the urodynamic study process is determining any movement of the Pves and Pabd catheters, which could lead to artifacts. Additional recorded parameters include:1.Maximum Cystometric Capacity (MCC) 2. Bladder Compliance (BC) 3.Maximum Uroflow Rate (Qmax) 4.Detrusor Pressure at Maximum Uroflow Rate (Pdet.Qmax) 5.Bladder Contraction Index (BCI):BCI = Pdet.Qmax + 5*Qmax. 6.Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index (BOOI):BOOI = Pdet.Qmax-2*Qmax 13,14 . In this study, each group's comfort levels were assessed using the Comfort-B scale and a visual analogue scale (VAS). The Comfort-B scale, derived from the original comfort scale (Ambuel et al., 1992), includes six behavioral items scored on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, total score thus varies from 6 to 30, with scores ≥ 17 indicating the need for a pain-reducing intervention 15,16 . The VAS, another subjective measure ranging from 0 to 10, was employed to assess parameters like pain, discomfort, or satisfaction 17,18 . 2.6 Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis in this study was conducted using SPSS 21.0, Excel and GraphPad Prism 9 software. Data visualization was performed using GraphPad Prism 9. If the distribution of numerical data was normal and homogeneous, the analysis of variance was used for inter group differences test, and mean ± standard deviation (SD) was used for statistical description. Conversely, If the distribution of numerical data was skewed or unequal, the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used for inter group differences test, and M(P25,P75) was used for statistical description.When statistically significant difference existed among multiple groups in numerical data, bonferroni method was used for pairwise comparison. Differences between rates in three different fixation methods were tested by Fisher's exact probability. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. 2.7 Medical Ethics Approval: This study obtained approval from the Medical Ethics Committee of XXX, with the reference number XXX. The study strictly adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided informed consent by signing a consent form before enrollment. Clinical trial registration: ChiCTRXXX. Results 3.1 Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients: In Group 1, a total of 28 patients were enrolled, including 22 males and 6 females, with an average age of 62.82 ± 15.59 years. Group 2 comprised 28 patients, consisting of 22 males and 6 females, with an average age of 66.14 ± 8.63 years. Group 3 included a total of 28 patients, with 23 males and 5 females, having an average age of 63 ± 16.78 years.(Table 1 ) Table 1 Characteristics of patients with three different fixation methods Index Waterproof Tape Fixation Patient-Manual Fixation Silk Thread Fixation Gender (Female/male) 6/22 6/22 5/23 Case number 28 28 28 Age (mean ± SD) 62.8 ± 15.6 66.1 ± 8.6 63 ± 17.8 Diagnosis Urinary incontinence 4 3 3 BPH༟ 14 12 13 Dysuria 3 6 2 Urinary freqency 7 7 10 SD:standard deviation; BPH:Benign prostatic hyperplasia. 3.2 Characteristics of effectiveness evaluation indexs: In Group 1, the MCC was 296.5(287,300 )ml, the BC was 141.75(99.85,150) ml/cmH2O, the average Qmax was 7.82 ± 4.24 ml/s, the Pdet.Qmax was 53(32.5,86.25), the BCI was 96.75 ± 28.26, and the BOOI was 50.5(29.5,88.25). In this group, the Pves catheters experienced a displacement rate of 14.29%, and the Pabd catheters experienced a displacement rate of 21.43% during the entire UDS process. In Group 2, the MCC was determined to be 288.5(272.25,300) ml, the average BC was 101.3(95.25,138.375) ml/cmH2O, the average Qmax was 8.43 ± 5.17 ml/s, the Pdet.Qmax was 48(36,77.75), the average BCI was 99.07 ± 31.91, and the BOOI was 43(28.5,71). No displacement of both the Pves and Pabd catheters was observed throughout the entire UDS process in this group. Lastly, in Group 3, the MCC was measured as 298(278,300) ml, the BC recorded as 120.25(93.9,149.375) ml/cmH2O, the average Qmax determined as 6.93 ± 3.80 ml/s, the Pdet.Qmax found to be 45.5(34.25,87), the average BCI calculated as 95.96 ± 35.72, and the BOOI established at 48(28,83). The Pves catheters experienced a displacement rate of 3.57%, and the Pabd catheters experienced a displacement rate of 10.71% during the entire UDS process.(Table 2 , Fig. 2 .a) Table 2 The difference between the parameters obtained by three different fixation methods Item Waterproof tape fixation Patient-manual fixation Silk thread fixation H/F P Age[M(P 25 ,P 75 )] 66(47.25,76) 67(61,71) 66(48,76.75) H = 0.562 0.755 MCC[M(P 25 ,P 75 )] 296.5(287,300) 288.5(272.25,300) 298(278,300) H = 0.570 0.752 BC[M(P 25 ,P 75 )] 141.75(99.85,150) 101.3(95.25,138.375) 120.25(93.9,149.375) H = 5.772 0.056 Qmax(mean ± sd) 7.82 ± 4.24 8.43 ± 5.17 6.93 ± 3.80 F = 0.808 0.449 pdet.Qmax[M(P 25 ,P 75 )] 53(32.5,86.25) 48(36,77.75) 45.5(34.25,87) H = 0.168 0.919 BCI(mean ± sd) 96.75 ± 28.26 99.07 ± 31.91 95.96 ± 35.72 F = 0.071 0.932 BOOI[M(P 25 ,P 75 )] 50.5(29.5,88.25) 43(28.5,71) 48(28,83) H = 0.065 0.968 Visual analogue scale[M(P 25 ,P 75 )] 4(4,5) a 8(7,9) b,c 5(4,5) b H = 54.653 0.000 COMFORT-B scale[M(P 25 ,P 75 )] 8(7.25,9) a 14.5(12.25,16) b,c 7.5(7,9) b H = 51.676 0.000 1.MCC: Maximum Cystometric Capacity;BC: Bladder Compliance;Qmax: Maximum Uroflow Rate; pdet.Qmax: Detrusor Pressure at Maximum Uroflow Rate; BCI: Bladder Contraction Index;BOOI: Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index; 2.a,b,c:The letters are used to representinter group differences. When the letters are the same, there is no difference between groups, vice versa, statistical difference exist between groups. 3.If the distribution of numerical data was normal and homogeneous, the analysis of variance was used for inter group differences test, and mean ± standard deviation (SD) was used for statistical description.Conversely, If the distribution of numerical data was skewed or unequal,the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used for inter group differences test, and M(P25,P75) was used for statistical description.When statistically significant difference existed among multiple groups, bonferroni method was used for pairwise comparison. 5.Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and Analysis of Variance. 3.3 Difference analysis: It was found that there was no statistically significant difference in the rates of "Pves catheter displacement" and "Pabd catheter movement" among Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 (P > 0.05). Additionally, no statistically significant differences were observed in Age, MCC, BC, Qmax, Pdet.Qmax, BCI, and BOOI among Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 (P > 0.05). Statistically significant differences were found among Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 in the VAS and Comfort-B Scale (P < 0.05). Through pairwise comparison, it was observed that statistically significant differences existed between Group 1 and Group 2, as well as between Group 1 and Group 3 (P < 0.05).(Table 3 , Fig. 2 .b,c) Table 3 The difference of measurement catheters displacement rate between three different fixation methods Group Whether Pabd catheter displacement happened P Whether Pves catheter displacement happened P No Yes No Yes Waterproof tape fixation 22(78.57) 6(21.43) 24(85.71) 4(14.29) 0.246 0.121 Patient-manual fixation 28(100) 0(0) 28(100) 0(0) Silk thread fixation 25(89.29) 3(10.71) 27(96.43) 1(3.57) Pabd: Abdominal pressure; Pves: Intravesical pressure; P: Fisher’s exact probability. Discussions Recent studies have underscored the importance of catheter fixation in urodynamic measurement catheters for quality contro l4,9 . However, there is a lack of research specifically addressing catheter fixation during UDS. This study aims to fill this gap by conducting the first comparative analysis of various catheter fixation methods employed during UDS. The primary objective is to preliminarily validate the effectiveness of three major catheter fixation methods used in UDS. By assessing the advantages and disadvantages of these methods in clinical practice, the study seeks to enhance our understanding of their applicability and suitability. In our study, we initially analyzed the baseline information of participating patients and found no significant difference in age among the groups. Urodynamic parameters obtained through three different catheter fixation methods were compared, focusing on two phases: the urine storage phase (filling phase) and the urination phase 19,20 . For the filling phase, we evaluated MCC and BC. For the urination phase, Qmax, Pdet.Qmax, BCI, and BOOI were analyzed. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in these parameters among the groups. Currently, waterproof tape fixation is commonly used as the mainstream method, while silk thread fixation was proposed 30 years ago but lacks specific research on its effectiveness. Both methods involve applying tape or thread around the catheter and fixing it to the patient's skin. These fixation methods do not significantly affect the uroflow rate during urination. However, factors such as abnormal skin conditions or excessive body hair in patients can lead to poor fixation, resulting in catheter displacement during UDS. To address issues related to inadequate catheter fixation, our center involved patients in fixing their own measurement catheters. Patients were instructed to use their thumb and index finger to fix the catheter, keeping the other fingers and palm away from the urination area. Comparing urodynamic parameters obtained through this patient-manual fixation method with the other two fixation methods, we found no statistical differences among the groups. This indicates consistent results obtained through all three fixation methods 21 . In addition to evaluating urodynamic parameters, an essential aspect of our study was the comparison of catheter displacement rates across different fixation methods during the entire UDS process. Previous studies in southwest China and mainland China have presented conflicting results regarding the displacement rates of Pves and Pabd catheters. Discrepancies have been observed, with one study reporting a higher displacement rate for Pves catheters compared to Pabd catheters (7% vs. 2%), while another study found the opposite trend (4.9% vs. 2.0%) 4,9 . Our findings revealed no catheter displacement in the patient-manual fixation group throughout the entire UDS process. This method, involving patients in fixing their own catheters, demonstrated promising results in mitigating catheter displacement. Contrastingly, the waterproof tape fixation group exhibited displacement rates of 14.29% for Pves catheter and the silk thread fixation group showed a displacement rate of 3.57%. While the waterproof tape fixation group exhibited displacement rates of 21.43% for Pabd catheter and the silk thread fixation group showed a displacement rate of 10.71%. Differences in observed catheter displacement rates between our study and the existing literature are noteworthy and may be attributed to our relatively modest sample size. In comparison, the sample sizes in the aforementioned two studies were more substantial, with 350 and 240 cases, respectively, while each subgroup in our study comprised only 28 cases. Despite this, further statistical analysis did not uncover significant differences in catheter displacement rates among the three groups. In our study, we evaluated the subjective experience of patients during UDS using two indices: the Comfort-B scale and VAS. The VAS is widely utilized for pain assessment in clinical settings. Analysis revealed the VAS scores in Group1, Group2, and Group3 as 4( 4 , 5 ), 8( 7 , 9 ), and 5( 4 , 5 ), respectively. VAS scores in Group1 and Group3 were significantly lower compared to Group2 (p < 0.05). Higher VAS scores in the patient-manual fixation catheter group may be attributed to discomfort from positioning when fixing two catheters or the requirement for the patient to maintain an upright posture during fixation, leading to subsequent discomfort. Results from Comfort-B scale aligned with those derived from VAS scores, further reinforcing the findings(The Comfort-B scale in Group1, Group2, and Group3 as 8(7.25,9), 14.5(12.25,16), and 7.5( 7 , 9 ), respectively). Simultaneously, we acknowledge several limitations in this study. Firstly, the sample size is relatively small, potentially introducing bias into the results. Future research endeavors should strive to expand the sample size to enhance the robustness of findings. Secondly, not all urodynamic parameters were included in this study. Parameters such as bladder sensation and the presence of overactive bladder contractions were not analyzed. Subsequent studies can broaden their scope by encompassing all relevant parameters for a more comprehensive analysis. Furthermore, our investigation focused solely on conventional urodynamics, and ambulatory urodynamics, as well as video urodynamics, were not explored. Conclusions We conducted a preliminary verification and found that three different methods of catheter fixation during UDS had no significant impact on the test results. However, it is important to note that patient-manual fixation, as well as the other two fixation methods, may result in decreased comfort and increased pain for patients during the UDS process. Abbreviations Urodynamic Study :UDS Lower Urinary Tract :LUT Intravesical Pressure :Pves Abdominal Pressure :Pabd Detrusor Pressure :Pdet Good Urodynamic Practice :GUP International Continence Society :ICS Non-Neurogenic Bladder Dysfunction :NNBD Neurogenic Bladder Dysfunction :NBD Maximum Cystometric Capacity :MCC Bladder Compliance :BC Maximum Uroflow Rate :Qmax Detrusor Pressure at Maximum Uroflow Rate :Pdet.Qmax Bladder Contraction Index :BCI Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index :BOOI Visual Analogue Scale :VAS Declarations 6.2Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study received approval from the ethics committee of West China Hospital (No. 2021183). The study did involve human participants, all patients signed informed consent before participating in the study. 6.3Consent for publication: Not Applicable. . 6.4Availability of data and materials: It can be obtained from the corresponding author when reasonably requested. 6.5Competing Interests: There is no conflict of interest. 6.6Funding: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Fund of China (Grant Nos.8227031992). 6.7Authors' contributions: Study design : X Z;T J;H S;Dy L Data collection:X Z;ZH H;H S;Dy L Data analysis:X Z;ZH H Draft writing:All authors Supervisor: T J;H S;Dy L 6.8Acknowledgements: Thanks to my loyal partners, Lucky (An 8-years old Akita) and Rich (a two-years old Maine coon), for their company and support on the road of scientific research! References Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. Good urodynamic practices: Uroflow- metry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(3):261–74. Rosier P, Schaefer W, Lose G, et al. International Continence Society Good Urodynamic Practices and Terms 2016: urody- namics, uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure‐flow study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(5):1243‐1260. Gammie A, Clarkson B, Constantinou C, et al. International Continence Society guidelines on urodynamic equipment performance. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(4):370‐379. Zeng X, Xia Z, Peng L, et al. Quality of urodynamics: a national cross‐sectional study in China. Chin Med J. 2023;136(2):236‐238. Zeng, X., Liu, S, Shen, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of four alternative approaches for the classical cough test during a urodynamic study in the context of the COVID-19 global pandemic. BMC Urol 23, 126 (2023). Sullivan J, Swithinbank L, Abrams P. An audit of urodynamic standardization in the West Midlands, UK. BJU Int 2003;91:430. Adekanmi OA, Edwards GJ, Barrington JW. The variation in urodynamic practice in the United Kingdom. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22:48–50. Sullivan J, Lewis P, Howell S, Williams T, Shepherd AM, Abrams P. Quality control in urodynamics: a review of urodynamic traces from one centre. BJU Int 2003;91:201–207 . Xiao Z. Urodynamics quality in southwest China: a multicen- ter random study. Chin J Urol. 2021;42:6. Gleason, D. M. and Cole, B. A. (1980). Monitoring bladder pressure in females using a fine, coiled catheter. Urology, 16,204. Shen, S-h, Zeng, X, Zhang, J, Shen, H, Luo, D-y. Correlation between obesity-related measurements and initial and initial resting intravesical and abdominal pressures in urodynamic study using air-filled catheter system. Neurourol Urodyn. 2023; 1-8. A,KONDO. Catheter Fixation in Urodynamic Studies. British journal of urology 1987; 59 :365-366. Abrams.Bladder outlet obstruction index, bladder contractility index and bladder voiding efficiency: three simple indices to define bladder voiding function[J].Bju International, 1999. Ku J H , Ko D W , Cho J Y ,et al. Correlation between prostatic urethral angle and bladder outlet obstruction index in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms.[J].Urology, 2010, 75(6):1467-1471. Bai J , Hsu L , Tang Y ,et al.Validation of the COMFORT Behavior scale and the FLACC scale for pain assessment in Chinese children after cardiac surgery.Pain Management Nursing, 2012, 13(1):18-26. Boerlage A A , Ista E , Duivenvoorden H J ,et al.The COMFORT behaviour scale detects clinically meaningful effects of analgesic and sedative treatment.European Journal of Pain, 2015, 19(4):473-479. Kersten P, Küçükdeveci AA, Tennant A. The use of the visual analogue scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes. J Rehabil Med, 2012, 44(7): 609-610. Langley G B , Sheppeard H .The visual analogue scale: Its use in pain measurement[J].Rheumatology International, 1985, 5(4):145-148. Fraser M O , Dolber P C .181 BLADDER FILLING IS AN ACTIVE RATHER THAN PASSIVE[J].Journal of Urology, 2010, 183(4):e72-e72. E.S.C. Van Waalwijk Van Doorn, Ambergen A W .Diagnostic assessment of the overactive bladder during the filling phase: the detrusor activity index[J].Bju International, 1999, 83 Suppl 2(S2):16. Drake, Marcus J.Doumouchtsis, Stergios K.Hashim, HashimGammie, Andrew.Fundamentals of urodynamic practice, based on International Continence Society good urodynamic practices recommendations[J].Neurourology and urodynamics. 2018, 37(Suppla6). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3920646","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":270978551,"identity":"a249238d-fae4-40df-bf06-e9a7d8aab463","order_by":0,"name":"Xiao Zeng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"West China Hospital of Sichuan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xiao","middleName":"","lastName":"Zeng","suffix":""},{"id":270978552,"identity":"aec20bdf-a1f9-48db-be4c-35d26a2e4386","order_by":1,"name":"Zhihui Huang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing， Chengdu","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhihui","middleName":"","lastName":"Huang","suffix":""},{"id":270978553,"identity":"d0ff688c-5aba-4447-9404-a760b7fb4592","order_by":2,"name":"Jie Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"West China Hospital of Sichuan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jie","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":270978554,"identity":"faab3da1-90be-4b54-b81e-18ae358d4eff","order_by":3,"name":"Hong Shen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"West China Hospital of Sichuan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hong","middleName":"","lastName":"Shen","suffix":""},{"id":270978555,"identity":"2a1d7354-6c8b-48e5-8af6-11c20b8ab2b9","order_by":4,"name":"De-yi Luo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"West China Hospital of Sichuan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"De-yi","middleName":"","lastName":"Luo","suffix":""},{"id":270978556,"identity":"10999194-a428-41d7-9d45-019fea941abd","order_by":5,"name":"Tao Jin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"West China Hospital of Sichuan University","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tao","middleName":"","lastName":"Jin","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-02 11:16:02","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3920646/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3920646/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":50676118,"identity":"73f4c504-dd42-43fa-a4a7-9f548886d973","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-05 15:21:26","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":11815533,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eShowcases various catheter fixation methods:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea. Waterproof tape and silk thread.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eb. Silk thread fixation method in male patient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ec. Silk thread fixation method in female patient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ed. Silk thread fixation method in patient with abdominal enterostomy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ee. Patient-manual fixation method in female patient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ef. Catheter fixation in a patient with abnormal hand function with operator assistance. g. Two different widths of waterproof tape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eh. Waterproof tape fixation method in male patient.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ei. Waterproof tape fixation method in female patient.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3920646/v1/32ef78a872fd2052fa28b705.png"},{"id":50676117,"identity":"0635c585-4afc-428f-a951-e81f88834d68","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-05 15:21:26","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1283271,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eVisualization of the statistical analysis results:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea. Comparative results of parameter differences obtained by three different fixation methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eb. Comparative results of Comfort-B scale scores for three different fixation methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ec. Comparative results of visual pain score scale for three different fixation methods.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3920646/v1/a014f4d4deb09bb796eb1eb2.png"},{"id":59438874,"identity":"7bcbb7f9-37aa-435d-bb64-413afda68bfc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 20:16:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":21874611,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3920646/v1/c698887b-77b6-47be-b10a-bbd4ea7b5dee.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Evaluate the effectiveness of three methods of measurement catheter fixation during urodynamic study: a single-center small sample size study","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe urodynamic study (UDS) plays a crucial role in evaluating the lower urinary tract (LUT) function, integrating hydrodynamics and electrophysiology theory\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. Through UDS, we can precisely quantify functional and pathophysiological changes in the bladder and urethra\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. The core principle of UDS involves using two pressure measurement catheters: one inserted into the bladder via the urethra to measure intravesical pressure (Pves) and another inserted into the rectum through the anus to measure abdominal pressure (Pabd)\u003csup\u003e2,3\u003c/sup\u003e. These measurements are then utilized by a computer system to calculate real-time detrusor pressure (Pdet) using the formula: Pdet\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pves - Pabd. Ensuring high-quality acquisition and conduction of Pves and Pabd pressure signals is crucial for obtaining reliable clinical UDS diagnoses\u003csup\u003e4,5\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent studies have underscored the importance of UDS quality in various contexts\u003csup\u003e4,6,7,8\u003c/sup\u003e. Particularly, two recent cross-sectional studies conducted in multi-center settings in mainland China and Southwest China focused on UDS quality, revealing the presence of diverse artifacts during procedures. The multi-center study in Southwest China found an overall incidence rate of catheter displacement to be 6%, while in mainland China, the incidence rate was 5.3%\u003csup\u003e4,9\u003c/sup\u003e. Although both studies suggested that catheter displacement might not be the most prevalent artifact during UDS, it's crucial to acknowledge that this specific artifact can significantly impact UDS quality. For example, if the Pves measurement catheter becomes displaced during the filling phase, it can alter the Pves signal, subsequently affecting the accuracy of the Pdet signal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the urodynamic study process, various methods exist for fixing measurement catheters. Currently, the prevalent approach in many centers involves using waterproof tape. However, it's noteworthy that alternative methods have been reported in the literature. For instance, Gleason et al. in 1980 and Konda in 1987 described using silk thread to fix urodynamic measurement catheters\u003csup\u003e10,11\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, in some centers, patients may be allowed to hold the UDS measurement catheters themselves during the procedure\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e. Regarding the \"Good Urodynamic Practice (GUP)\" developed by the International Continence Society (ICS) is considered authoritative in the field. In the \"7.5/ Transurethral catheter\" section, specific recommendations for the fixation of UDS measurement catheters are not provided\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. Despite these practices being common, the available literature on this specific topic is limited, with only one article identified through a search of mainstream international academic databases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study was designed to contribute robust evidence for selecting optimal fixation methods for measurement catheters during real-world clinical UDS processes. We specifically investigated the effectiveness of three commonly used UDS measurement catheter fixation methods.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods and materials","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Research Inclusion Criteria:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatients included in the study must meet the following criteria:1.Age: Participants must be more than 18 years. 2.Comprehension and Cooperation: Patients should possess the ability to understand the examination process and cooperate with the procedure. 3.Hand Function:Participants should have normal hand function to ensure their capability to handle the catheter. 4.Intact Skin: The skin on the abdomen, perineum, and thigh should be devoid of any lesions or abnormalities. 5.Allergy History: The patient reported no history of allergy to fixed tape, silk thread, or iodophor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 Research Exclusion Criteria:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to the criteria mentioned in 2.1, patients were excluded from the study if they met any of the following conditions:1.Urinary Tract Infection: Current diagnosis of urinary tract infection. 2.Urethral Injury or Urethral Stricture: History of urethral injury or urethral stricture. 3.Post-Rectal Surgery: Underwent rectal surgery in the past. 4.Abnormal Coagulation and Immune Function: Abnormalities in coagulation or immune function.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Research Protocol:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, we selected patients who had undergone urodynamic examinations at XXX between April and June 2023. During the observation period, we screened all patients who underwent urodynamic examinations within one month. Out of the 118 patients examined during this period, 34 did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study. The final study included 84 patients, and we divided them into three groups on average. The study included three groups, each employing a distinct catheter fixation method during UDS, defined as follows: 1. Waterproof Tape Fixation (group1)(Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.g,h,i); 2. Patient-Manual Fixation (group2)(Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.e,f); 3. Silk Thread Fixation (group3)(Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.a,b,c,d).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Urodynamic Study Process and Catheter Fixation Methods:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.1 Urodynamic Study Process:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePressure flow studies were conducted in the sitting position using Laborie Triton equipment with air-charged catheters (Laborie \u0026amp; Co., Aquarius TT Triton), following GUP guidelines\u003csup\u003e1,2\u003c/sup\u003e. The infusion medium was sterile normal saline at 37℃, with a filling rate of 61ml/min for patients with non-neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NNBD) and 11ml/min for patients with neurogenic bladder dysfunction (NBD).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.2 Measurement catheters fixation methods:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.Waterproof Tape Fixation: For female patients, a waterproof tape (Transpore\u003csup\u003eTM\u003c/sup\u003e,3M) was wrapped around the Pves catheter, with tape ends attached to the abdomen. In male patients, the waterproof tape was fixed on the penis, and similarly, around the Pabd catheter with ends fixed to the thigh skin. This method aimed to secure catheters in place using waterproof tape. 2.Patient-Manual Fixation: Patients were instructed to hold their catheters, and catheters were taped to the patient\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e. 3.Silk Thread Fixation: A silk thread (0/3.5 Metric, MERSILK SA86G, Ethicon) was tied around the catheter. Two ends of this suture extended along the penile skin, with adhesive tape encircling the middle or the base of the penis to fix them in male patients. For female patients, the other ends of the thread extended obliquely on a diagonal line\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5 Effectiveness Evaluation Index:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne crucial evaluation index throughout the urodynamic study process is determining any movement of the Pves and Pabd catheters, which could lead to artifacts. Additional recorded parameters include:1.Maximum Cystometric Capacity (MCC) 2. Bladder Compliance (BC) 3.Maximum Uroflow Rate (Qmax) 4.Detrusor Pressure at Maximum Uroflow Rate (Pdet.Qmax) 5.Bladder Contraction Index (BCI):BCI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pdet.Qmax\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;5*Qmax. 6.Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index (BOOI):BOOI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Pdet.Qmax-2*Qmax\u003csup\u003e13,14\u003c/sup\u003e. In this study, each group's comfort levels were assessed using the Comfort-B scale and a visual analogue scale (VAS). The Comfort-B scale, derived from the original comfort scale (Ambuel et al., 1992), includes six behavioral items scored on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, total score thus varies from 6 to 30, with scores\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;17 indicating the need for a pain-reducing intervention\u003csup\u003e15,16\u003c/sup\u003e. The VAS, another subjective measure ranging from 0 to 10, was employed to assess parameters like pain, discomfort, or satisfaction\u003csup\u003e17,18\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6 Statistical Analysis:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis in this study was conducted using SPSS 21.0, Excel and GraphPad Prism 9 software. Data visualization was performed using GraphPad Prism 9. If the distribution of numerical data was normal and homogeneous, the analysis of variance was used for inter group differences test, and mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation (SD) was used for statistical description. Conversely, If the distribution of numerical data was skewed or unequal, the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used for inter group differences test, and M(P25,P75) was used for statistical description.When statistically significant difference existed among multiple groups in numerical data, bonferroni method was used for pairwise comparison. Differences between rates in three different fixation methods were tested by Fisher's exact probability. Statistical significance was defined as p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7 Medical Ethics Approval:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study obtained approval from the Medical Ethics Committee of XXX, with the reference number XXX. The study strictly adhered to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided informed consent by signing a consent form before enrollment. Clinical trial registration: ChiCTRXXX.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Baseline characteristics of enrolled patients:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Group 1, a total of 28 patients were enrolled, including 22 males and 6 females, with an average age of 62.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;15.59 years. Group 2 comprised 28 patients, consisting of 22 males and 6 females, with an average age of 66.14\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8.63 years. Group 3 included a total of 28 patients, with 23 males and 5 females, having an average age of 63\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;16.78 years.(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of patients with three different fixation methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndex\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWaterproof Tape Fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatient-Manual Fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSilk Thread Fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGender (Female/male)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6/22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6/22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5/23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCase number\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge (mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e62.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;15.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;8.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;17.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiagnosis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrinary incontinence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBPH༟\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDysuria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUrinary freqency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD:standard deviation; BPH:Benign prostatic hyperplasia.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Characteristics of effectiveness evaluation indexs:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Group 1, the MCC was 296.5(287,300 )ml, the BC was 141.75(99.85,150) ml/cmH2O, the average Qmax was 7.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.24 ml/s, the Pdet.Qmax was 53(32.5,86.25), the BCI was 96.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.26, and the BOOI was 50.5(29.5,88.25). In this group, the Pves catheters experienced a displacement rate of 14.29%, and the Pabd catheters experienced a displacement rate of 21.43% during the entire UDS process. In Group 2, the MCC was determined to be 288.5(272.25,300) ml, the average BC was 101.3(95.25,138.375) ml/cmH2O, the average Qmax was 8.43\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.17 ml/s, the Pdet.Qmax was 48(36,77.75), the average BCI was 99.07\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;31.91, and the BOOI was 43(28.5,71). No displacement of both the Pves and Pabd catheters was observed throughout the entire UDS process in this group. Lastly, in Group 3, the MCC was measured as 298(278,300) ml, the BC recorded as 120.25(93.9,149.375) ml/cmH2O, the average Qmax determined as 6.93\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.80 ml/s, the Pdet.Qmax found to be 45.5(34.25,87), the average BCI calculated as 95.96\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;35.72, and the BOOI established at 48(28,83). The Pves catheters experienced a displacement rate of 3.57%, and the Pabd catheters experienced a displacement rate of 10.71% during the entire UDS process.(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.a)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe difference between the parameters obtained by three different fixation methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWaterproof tape fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatient-manual fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSilk thread fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH/F\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge[M(P\u003csub\u003e25\u003c/sub\u003e,P\u003csub\u003e75\u003c/sub\u003e)]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66(47.25,76)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e67(61,71)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e66(48,76.75)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.562\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.755\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMCC[M(P\u003csub\u003e25\u003c/sub\u003e,P\u003csub\u003e75\u003c/sub\u003e)]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e296.5(287,300)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e288.5(272.25,300)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e298(278,300)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.570\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.752\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBC[M(P\u003csub\u003e25\u003c/sub\u003e,P\u003csub\u003e75\u003c/sub\u003e)]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e141.75(99.85,150)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e101.3(95.25,138.375)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120.25(93.9,149.375)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.772\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQmax(mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;sd)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.82\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.43\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.93\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.80\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.808\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.449\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003epdet.Qmax[M(P\u003csub\u003e25\u003c/sub\u003e,P\u003csub\u003e75\u003c/sub\u003e)]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53(32.5,86.25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48(36,77.75)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.5(34.25,87)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.168\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.919\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBCI(mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;sd)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96.75\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.07\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;31.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e95.96\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;35.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.932\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBOOI[M(P\u003csub\u003e25\u003c/sub\u003e,P\u003csub\u003e75\u003c/sub\u003e)]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50.5(29.5,88.25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43(28.5,71)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48(28,83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.065\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.968\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVisual analogue scale[M(P\u003csub\u003e25\u003c/sub\u003e,P\u003csub\u003e75\u003c/sub\u003e)]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4(4,5)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8(7,9)\u003csup\u003eb,c\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5(4,5)\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;54.653\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCOMFORT-B scale[M(P\u003csub\u003e25\u003c/sub\u003e,P\u003csub\u003e75\u003c/sub\u003e)]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8(7.25,9)\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.5(12.25,16)\u003csup\u003eb,c\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.5(7,9)\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51.676\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e1.MCC: Maximum Cystometric Capacity;BC: Bladder Compliance;Qmax: Maximum Uroflow Rate; pdet.Qmax: Detrusor Pressure at Maximum Uroflow Rate; BCI: Bladder Contraction Index;BOOI: Bladder Outlet Obstruction Index;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e2.a,b,c:The letters are used to representinter group differences. When the letters are the same, there is no difference between groups, vice versa, statistical difference exist between groups.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e3.If the distribution of numerical data was normal and homogeneous, the analysis of variance was used for inter group differences test, and mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation (SD) was used for statistical description.Conversely, If the distribution of numerical data was skewed or unequal,the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test was used for inter group differences test, and M(P25,P75) was used for statistical description.When statistically significant difference existed among multiple groups, bonferroni method was used for pairwise comparison.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e5.Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test and Analysis of Variance.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Difference analysis:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt was found that there was no statistically significant difference in the rates of \"Pves catheter displacement\" and \"Pabd catheter movement\" among Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Additionally, no statistically significant differences were observed in Age, MCC, BC, Qmax, Pdet.Qmax, BCI, and BOOI among Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Statistically significant differences were found among Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 in the VAS and Comfort-B Scale (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Through pairwise comparison, it was observed that statistically significant differences existed between Group 1 and Group 2, as well as between Group 1 and Group 3 (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).(Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.b,c)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe difference of measurement catheters displacement rate between three different fixation methods\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"20\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c14\" colnum=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c15\" colnum=\"15\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c16\" colnum=\"16\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c17\" colnum=\"17\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c18\" colnum=\"18\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c19\" colnum=\"19\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c20\" colnum=\"20\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhether Pabd catheter displacement happened\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c17\" namest=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhether Pves catheter displacement happened\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWaterproof tape fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22(78.57)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6(21.43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24(85.71)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4(14.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.246\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.121\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePatient-manual fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28(100)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0(0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28(100)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0(0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSilk thread fixation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25(89.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3(10.71)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27(96.43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1(3.57)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"18\" nameend=\"c18\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePabd: Abdominal pressure; Pves: Intravesical pressure; P: Fisher\u0026rsquo;s exact probability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussions","content":"\u003cp\u003eRecent studies have underscored the importance of catheter fixation in urodynamic measurement catheters for quality contro\u003csup\u003el4,9\u003c/sup\u003e. However, there is a lack of research specifically addressing catheter fixation during UDS. This study aims to fill this gap by conducting the first comparative analysis of various catheter fixation methods employed during UDS. The primary objective is to preliminarily validate the effectiveness of three major catheter fixation methods used in UDS. By assessing the advantages and disadvantages of these methods in clinical practice, the study seeks to enhance our understanding of their applicability and suitability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our study, we initially analyzed the baseline information of participating patients and found no significant difference in age among the groups. Urodynamic parameters obtained through three different catheter fixation methods were compared, focusing on two phases: the urine storage phase (filling phase) and the urination phase\u003csup\u003e19,20\u003c/sup\u003e. For the filling phase, we evaluated MCC and BC. For the urination phase, Qmax, Pdet.Qmax, BCI, and BOOI were analyzed. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in these parameters among the groups. Currently, waterproof tape fixation is commonly used as the mainstream method, while silk thread fixation was proposed 30 years ago but lacks specific research on its effectiveness. Both methods involve applying tape or thread around the catheter and fixing it to the patient's skin. These fixation methods do not significantly affect the uroflow rate during urination. However, factors such as abnormal skin conditions or excessive body hair in patients can lead to poor fixation, resulting in catheter displacement during UDS. To address issues related to inadequate catheter fixation, our center involved patients in fixing their own measurement catheters. Patients were instructed to use their thumb and index finger to fix the catheter, keeping the other fingers and palm away from the urination area. Comparing urodynamic parameters obtained through this patient-manual fixation method with the other two fixation methods, we found no statistical differences among the groups. This indicates consistent results obtained through all three fixation methods\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to evaluating urodynamic parameters, an essential aspect of our study was the comparison of catheter displacement rates across different fixation methods during the entire UDS process. Previous studies in southwest China and mainland China have presented conflicting results regarding the displacement rates of Pves and Pabd catheters. Discrepancies have been observed, with one study reporting a higher displacement rate for Pves catheters compared to Pabd catheters (7% vs. 2%), while another study found the opposite trend (4.9% vs. 2.0%)\u003csup\u003e4,9\u003c/sup\u003e. Our findings revealed no catheter displacement in the patient-manual fixation group throughout the entire UDS process. This method, involving patients in fixing their own catheters, demonstrated promising results in mitigating catheter displacement. Contrastingly, the waterproof tape fixation group exhibited displacement rates of 14.29% for Pves catheter and the silk thread fixation group showed a displacement rate of 3.57%. While the waterproof tape fixation group exhibited displacement rates of 21.43% for Pabd catheter and the silk thread fixation group showed a displacement rate of 10.71%. Differences in observed catheter displacement rates between our study and the existing literature are noteworthy and may be attributed to our relatively modest sample size. In comparison, the sample sizes in the aforementioned two studies were more substantial, with 350 and 240 cases, respectively, while each subgroup in our study comprised only 28 cases. Despite this, further statistical analysis did not uncover significant differences in catheter displacement rates among the three groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our study, we evaluated the subjective experience of patients during UDS using two indices: the Comfort-B scale and VAS. The VAS is widely utilized for pain assessment in clinical settings. Analysis revealed the VAS scores in Group1, Group2, and Group3 as 4(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), 8(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e), and 5(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e), respectively. VAS scores in Group1 and Group3 were significantly lower compared to Group2 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Higher VAS scores in the patient-manual fixation catheter group may be attributed to discomfort from positioning when fixing two catheters or the requirement for the patient to maintain an upright posture during fixation, leading to subsequent discomfort. Results from Comfort-B scale aligned with those derived from VAS scores, further reinforcing the findings(The Comfort-B scale in Group1, Group2, and Group3 as 8(7.25,9), 14.5(12.25,16), and 7.5(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e), respectively).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimultaneously, we acknowledge several limitations in this study. Firstly, the sample size is relatively small, potentially introducing bias into the results. Future research endeavors should strive to expand the sample size to enhance the robustness of findings. Secondly, not all urodynamic parameters were included in this study. Parameters such as bladder sensation and the presence of overactive bladder contractions were not analyzed. Subsequent studies can broaden their scope by encompassing all relevant parameters for a more comprehensive analysis. Furthermore, our investigation focused solely on conventional urodynamics, and ambulatory urodynamics, as well as video urodynamics, were not explored.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a preliminary verification and found that three different methods of catheter fixation during UDS had no significant impact on the test results. However, it is important to note that patient-manual fixation, as well as the other two fixation methods, may result in decreased comfort and increased pain for patients during the UDS process.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eUrodynamic Study :UDS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLower Urinary Tract :LUT\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntravesical Pressure :Pves\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbdominal Pressure :Pabd\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDetrusor Pressure :Pdet\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGood Urodynamic Practice :GUP\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInternational Continence Society :ICS\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNon-Neurogenic Bladder Dysfunction :NNBD\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeurogenic Bladder Dysfunction :NBD\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaximum Cystometric Capacity :MCC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBladder Compliance :BC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaximum Uroflow Rate :Qmax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDetrusor Pressure at Maximum Uroflow Rate :Pdet.Qmax\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBladder Contraction Index :BCI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBladder Outlet Obstruction Index :BOOI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVisual Analogue Scale :VAS\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2Ethics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003eThe study received approval from the ethics committee of West China Hospital (No. 2021183).\u0026nbsp;The study did involve human participants, all patients signed informed consent before participating in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.3Consent for publication:\u003c/strong\u003eNot Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e6.4Availability of data and materials:\u003c/strong\u003eIt can be obtained from the corresponding author when reasonably requested.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.5Competing Interests:\u003c/strong\u003eThere is no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.6Funding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis study was funded by the National Natural Science\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFund of China (Grant Nos.8227031992).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.7Authors\u0026apos; contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy design\u003cstrong\u003e:\u003c/strong\u003eX Z;T J;H S;Dy L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData collection:X Z;ZH H;H S;Dy L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis:X Z;ZH H\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDraft writing:All authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupervisor: T J;H S;Dy L\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.8Acknowledgements:\u003c/strong\u003eThanks to my loyal partners, Lucky (An 8-years old Akita) and Rich (a two-years old Maine coon), for their company and support on the road of scientific research!\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchafer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. Good urodynamic practices: Uroflow- metry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(3):261\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosier P, Schaefer W, Lose G, et al. International Continence Society Good Urodynamic Practices and Terms 2016: urody- namics, uroflowmetry, cystometry, and pressure‐flow study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(5):1243‐1260. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGammie A, Clarkson B, Constantinou C, et al. International Continence Society guidelines on urodynamic equipment performance. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(4):370‐379. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeng X, Xia Z, Peng L, et al. Quality of urodynamics: a national cross‐sectional study in China. Chin Med J. 2023;136(2):236‐238. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeng, X., Liu, S, Shen, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of four alternative approaches for the classical cough test during a urodynamic study in the context of the COVID-19 global pandemic. BMC Urol 23, 126 (2023). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSullivan J, Swithinbank L, Abrams P. An audit of urodynamic standardization in the West Midlands, UK. BJU Int 2003;91:430. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdekanmi OA, Edwards GJ, Barrington JW. The variation in urodynamic practice in the United Kingdom. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002;22:48\u0026ndash;50. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSullivan J, Lewis P, Howell S, Williams T, Shepherd AM, Abrams P. Quality control in urodynamics: a review of urodynamic traces from one centre. BJU Int 2003;91:201\u0026ndash;207 .\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXiao Z. Urodynamics quality in southwest China: a multicen- ter random study. Chin J Urol. 2021;42:6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGleason, D. M. and Cole, B. A. (1980). Monitoring bladder pressure in females using a fine, coiled catheter. Urology, 16,204.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShen, S-h, Zeng, X, Zhang, J, Shen, H, Luo, D-y. Correlation between obesity-related measurements and initial and initial resting intravesical and abdominal pressures in urodynamic study using air-filled catheter system. Neurourol Urodyn. 2023; 1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eA,KONDO. Catheter Fixation in Urodynamic Studies. British journal of urology 1987; 59 :365-366.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbrams.Bladder outlet obstruction index, bladder contractility index and bladder voiding efficiency: three simple indices to define bladder voiding function[J].Bju International, 1999.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKu J H , Ko D W , Cho J Y ,et al. Correlation between prostatic urethral angle and bladder outlet obstruction index in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms.[J].Urology, 2010, 75(6):1467-1471.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBai J , Hsu L , Tang Y ,et al.Validation of the COMFORT Behavior scale and the FLACC scale for pain assessment in Chinese children after cardiac surgery.Pain Management Nursing, 2012, 13(1):18-26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoerlage A A , Ista E , Duivenvoorden H J ,et al.The COMFORT behaviour scale detects clinically meaningful effects of analgesic and sedative treatment.European Journal of Pain, 2015, 19(4):473-479.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKersten P, K\u0026uuml;\u0026ccedil;\u0026uuml;kdeveci AA, Tennant A. The use of the visual analogue scale (VAS) in rehabilitation outcomes. J Rehabil Med, 2012, 44(7): 609-610.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLangley G B , Sheppeard H .The visual analogue scale: Its use in pain measurement[J].Rheumatology International, 1985, 5(4):145-148.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFraser M O , Dolber P C .181 BLADDER FILLING IS AN ACTIVE RATHER THAN PASSIVE[J].Journal of Urology, 2010, 183(4):e72-e72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eE.S.C. Van Waalwijk Van Doorn, Ambergen A W .Diagnostic assessment of the overactive bladder during the filling phase: the detrusor activity index[J].Bju International, 1999, 83 Suppl 2(S2):16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDrake, Marcus J.Doumouchtsis, Stergios K.Hashim, HashimGammie, Andrew.Fundamentals of urodynamic practice, based on International Continence Society good urodynamic practices recommendations[J].Neurourology and urodynamics. 2018, 37(Suppla6).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Urodynamic study, Fixation methods, Waterproof tape fixation, Patient-manual fixation, Silk thread fixation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3920646/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3920646/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjectives\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study in order to provide better evidence for the selection of fixation methods for measurement catheters during clinical UDS .\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe selected patients who had undergone urodynamic examinations at the XXX between April and June 2023. These patients were chosen based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria established for the study. We observed the effectiveness of three different fixation methods: 1.Waterproof Tape Fixation(group1) 2. Patient-Manual Fixation(group2) 3. Silk Thread Fixation(group3).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were 28 patients enrolled in each group, and the mean ages were: 62.82 ± 15.59, 66.14 ± 8.63, 63 ± 16.78 years, respectively. MCC, BC, Qmax, Pdet.Qmax, BCI and BOO in 3 different catheter fixation methods had no statistical difference (P \u0026gt; 0.05). The total incidence of catheter displacement in group1, group2 and group3 was 35.71%, 0, 14.29%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the Comfort-B scale of Group 1 and Group 2, Group 2 and Group 3 (p \u0026lt; 0.000). Regarding the visual analogue scores, there was a statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2, Group 2 and Group 3 (p \u0026lt; 0.000).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a preliminary verification and found that three different methods of catheter fixation during UDS had no significant impact on the test results. However, it is important to note that patient-manual fixation, as well as the other two fixation methods, may result in decreased comfort and increased pain for patients during the UDS process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial registration\u003c/strong\u003e: ChiCTR2300068280. 2023-5-15\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Evaluate the effectiveness of three methods of measurement catheter fixation during urodynamic study: a single-center small sample size study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-05 15:21:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3920646/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3665d47a-cf20-4b6e-b715-4fe85f46389a","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 5th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-07-01T20:08:13+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-05 15:21:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3920646","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3920646","identity":"rs-3920646","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"7rjqhiLT3MXkJMwkYKINL","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}