ArticleBMC urology2026
Retrospective evaluation of clinical performance of three measurement catheter fixation methods in urodynamic studies.
Article in BMC urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCatheter displacement during urodynamic studies remains a common challenge, potentially introducing artifacts, compromising test accuracy, and decreasing patient comfort. Despite the clinical significance of stable catheter fixation, evidence-based recommendations for optimal fixation techniques are lacking. This study seeks to address this gap by comparing the effectiveness and patient comfort associated with three commonly used catheter fixation methods during urodynamic study.
methodsWe retrospectively collected data from non-randomized patients who underwent urodynamic studies (UDS) at West China Hospital of Sichuan University between April and June 2023. Patients were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and assigned to one of three catheter fixation methods. The effectiveness of the following fixation techniques was evaluated: waterproof tape fixation (Group 1: catheter secured to the skin with adhesive tape), (2) patient-manual fixation (Group 2: patient holds the catheter manually throughout the procedure), and (3) silk thread fixation (Group 3: catheter secured with silk suture tied and fixed externally).
resultsA total of 168 patients were enrolled in the study, with 56 patients in each group. The median ages for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 66 (47.25, 76), 67 (61,71), and 66 (48, 76.75) years, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in terms of maximum cystometric capacity (MCC), bladder compliance (BC), maximum flow rate (Qmax), detrusor pressure at Qmax (Pdet.Qmax), bladder contractility index (BCI), or bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI) (P > 0.05). The overall incidence of catheter displacement was 35.71% in Group 1, 0% in Group 2, and 14.29% in Group 3. Statistically significant differences in Comfort-B scale scores were observed between Group 1 and Group 2, and between Group 2 and Group 3 (P < 0.000). Similarly, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores also showed significant differences between Group 1 and Group 2, and between Group 2 and Group 3 (P < 0.000).
conclusionsOur preliminary assessment indicated that the three catheter fixation methods did not significantly influence urodynamic parameters. Notably, patient-manual fixation achieved the lowest catheter displacement rate (0%) but was associated with the highest pain and discomfort scores. In contrast, waterproof tape and silk thread fixation offered better patient comfort but with higher displacement rates. These findings highlight a trade-off between catheter stability and patient comfort, suggesting that fixation method selection should be individualized based on patient characteristics and procedural requireme. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.