Comparison of water-perfused (WP) and air-charged (AC) catheters for invasive urodynamic investigation (UDI) regarding consistency, features and artifacts.

UDI is the gold standard to assess refractory lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), i.e. to detect and specify lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD). Therefore, UDI findings lead to diagnosis and decision-making for further non-invasive and invasive therapies. For UDI pressure recordings, the use of WP catheters is recommended by the International Continence Society (ICS).

Currently AC catheters have been marked for pressure recording as an alternative to WP catheters. However, the number of comparative studies is very limited. Nevertheless, since release, AC catheters have gained popularity due to their omnidirectional detection of pressure, and claimed reduction in movement artefacts (due to weight-less air column vs weighted water column), lack of external reference level, and ease of set-up/use. Still, there is debate whether AC catheters are an acceptable alternative to fluid-filled lines for measuring intravesical and intra-abdominal pressure in UDI. Based on the available literature, an appropriate conclusion, whether both systems can be used as equivalents and interchangeably, cannot be drawn.

In this study we compare both systems regarding consistency, features and artifacts.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Male and female patients with LUTD
• Age: minimum 18 years
• Informed consent
• Competent German language skills

Exclusion Criteria:

• Age <18 years
• Pregnancy or breast feeding (see chapter 3.6.)
• Symptomatic UTI
• Individuals especially in need of protection
• No informed consent
• Patients incapable to follow the trial, e.g. because of language problems, psychiatric disorders, dementia and so on.
• Earlier participation in this clinical trial