Urethrography in men: conventional technique versus clamp method

To compare examination adequacy and patient discomfort during retrograde urethrography (RUG) performed by using the conventional balloon method versus those of RUG and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) performed with the clamp method of using drip infusion for the administration of contrast material...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inRadiology Vol. 252; no. 1; pp. 240 - 246
Main Authors Berná-Mestre, Juan D, Berná-Serna, Juan D, Aparicio-Mesón, Martín, Canteras-Jordana, Manuel
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.07.2009
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract To compare examination adequacy and patient discomfort during retrograde urethrography (RUG) performed by using the conventional balloon method versus those of RUG and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) performed with the clamp method of using drip infusion for the administration of contrast material. This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board; written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Eighty men (mean age, 64.3 years +/- 16 [standard deviation]; range, 18-85 years) suspected of having urethral stenosis were randomly distributed into two groups for urethrography: a control group (n = 36) and a clamp group (n = 44). In 11 of the 36 patients in the control group, the conventional balloon method could not be used, so these patients were transferred to the clamp group. Drip infusion was used to administer contrast material for RUG, and, except in cases where a suprapubic catheter was used (n = 8), for VCUG. The pain levels reported by patients were recorded by using a verbal descriptor scale (VDS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). In the control group, RUG was successfully performed in 69% of patients (25 of 36), and mean pain levels recorded on inflation of the balloon were distressing according to the VDS and 4.8 +/- 1.4 (range, 2.3-7.5) according to the VAS. In the clamp group, RUG was successfully performed in all cases; in 69% of patients in this group (38 of 55), the pain level recorded at external compression was no pain according to the VDS and 0 according to the VAS, while mean values in the remaining 31% of patients (17 of 55) were mild pain on the VDS and 0.6 +/- 0.3 (range, 0.3-1.2) on the VAS. Bladder filling for VCUG was achieved with drip infusion in 96% of patients (69 of 72) in an average time of 11 minutes. The conventional balloon method of performing RUG is painful and, in some cases, not effective. The clamp method is a simple, well-tolerated procedure that allowed diagnostic evaluation in all cases. Drip infusion enables RUG and VCUG to be performed without the need for syringes or bladder catheters, thus increasing patient comfort.
AbstractList To compare examination adequacy and patient discomfort during retrograde urethrography (RUG) performed by using the conventional balloon method versus those of RUG and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) performed with the clamp method of using drip infusion for the administration of contrast material. This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board; written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Eighty men (mean age, 64.3 years +/- 16 [standard deviation]; range, 18-85 years) suspected of having urethral stenosis were randomly distributed into two groups for urethrography: a control group (n = 36) and a clamp group (n = 44). In 11 of the 36 patients in the control group, the conventional balloon method could not be used, so these patients were transferred to the clamp group. Drip infusion was used to administer contrast material for RUG, and, except in cases where a suprapubic catheter was used (n = 8), for VCUG. The pain levels reported by patients were recorded by using a verbal descriptor scale (VDS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS). In the control group, RUG was successfully performed in 69% of patients (25 of 36), and mean pain levels recorded on inflation of the balloon were distressing according to the VDS and 4.8 +/- 1.4 (range, 2.3-7.5) according to the VAS. In the clamp group, RUG was successfully performed in all cases; in 69% of patients in this group (38 of 55), the pain level recorded at external compression was no pain according to the VDS and 0 according to the VAS, while mean values in the remaining 31% of patients (17 of 55) were mild pain on the VDS and 0.6 +/- 0.3 (range, 0.3-1.2) on the VAS. Bladder filling for VCUG was achieved with drip infusion in 96% of patients (69 of 72) in an average time of 11 minutes. The conventional balloon method of performing RUG is painful and, in some cases, not effective. The clamp method is a simple, well-tolerated procedure that allowed diagnostic evaluation in all cases. Drip infusion enables RUG and VCUG to be performed without the need for syringes or bladder catheters, thus increasing patient comfort.
PURPOSETo compare examination adequacy and patient discomfort during retrograde urethrography (RUG) performed by using the conventional balloon method versus those of RUG and voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) performed with the clamp method of using drip infusion for the administration of contrast material.MATERIALS AND METHODSThis prospective study was approved by the institutional review board; written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Eighty men (mean age, 64.3 years +/- 16 [standard deviation]; range, 18-85 years) suspected of having urethral stenosis were randomly distributed into two groups for urethrography: a control group (n = 36) and a clamp group (n = 44). In 11 of the 36 patients in the control group, the conventional balloon method could not be used, so these patients were transferred to the clamp group. Drip infusion was used to administer contrast material for RUG, and, except in cases where a suprapubic catheter was used (n = 8), for VCUG. The pain levels reported by patients were recorded by using a verbal descriptor scale (VDS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS).RESULTSIn the control group, RUG was successfully performed in 69% of patients (25 of 36), and mean pain levels recorded on inflation of the balloon were distressing according to the VDS and 4.8 +/- 1.4 (range, 2.3-7.5) according to the VAS. In the clamp group, RUG was successfully performed in all cases; in 69% of patients in this group (38 of 55), the pain level recorded at external compression was no pain according to the VDS and 0 according to the VAS, while mean values in the remaining 31% of patients (17 of 55) were mild pain on the VDS and 0.6 +/- 0.3 (range, 0.3-1.2) on the VAS. Bladder filling for VCUG was achieved with drip infusion in 96% of patients (69 of 72) in an average time of 11 minutes.CONCLUSIONThe conventional balloon method of performing RUG is painful and, in some cases, not effective. The clamp method is a simple, well-tolerated procedure that allowed diagnostic evaluation in all cases. Drip infusion enables RUG and VCUG to be performed without the need for syringes or bladder catheters, thus increasing patient comfort.
Author Berná-Serna, Juan D
Berná-Mestre, Juan D
Aparicio-Mesón, Martín
Canteras-Jordana, Manuel
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Juan D
  surname: Berná-Mestre
  fullname: Berná-Mestre, Juan D
  email: mesjubermu@hotmail.com
  organization: Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Salamanca, Paseo San Vicente s/n, 37007 Salamanca, Spain. mesjubermu@hotmail.com
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Juan D
  surname: Berná-Serna
  fullname: Berná-Serna, Juan D
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Martín
  surname: Aparicio-Mesón
  fullname: Aparicio-Mesón, Martín
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Manuel
  surname: Canteras-Jordana
  fullname: Canteras-Jordana, Manuel
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19561259$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpFkDtPwzAYRS1URB_wA1hQJrYUP2OHCVTxkiqx0NlynC8kKLGDnVTqvyeolTrd5dyrq7NEM-cdIHRL8JoQrh6CKRvfrqmgFCuKM36BFkRQmRJGxAwtMGYsVZzkc7SM8QdjwoWSV2hOcpERKvIFetoFGOrgv4Pp60PSuKQD95hY7_bghsY70yYD2No1vyMkewhxjIltTddP4FD78hpdVqaNcHPKFdq9vnxt3tPt59vH5nmbWpaJIWUV5ZkCY5QouCSQlzkXsjAlFkoRiXnBCo45txbTqsyElUoZS3PJcFUxatkK3R93--CnK3HQXRMttK1x4MeoM8kZlTmdQHIEbfAxBqh0H5rOhIMmWP9r00dt-qxt6tydxseig_LcOHlifyEua6g
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1016_S1761_3310_22_47081_2
crossref_primary_10_1259_bjr_20211034
crossref_primary_10_1002_tre_957
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urology_2015_12_086
crossref_primary_10_1038_nrurol_2009_165
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12894_023_01328_0
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_019_02127_8
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urology_2011_01_071
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00330_017_5211_3
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_juro_2013_04_024
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00256_013_1600_0
crossref_primary_10_1016_S1636_5577_23_48169_2
crossref_primary_10_1007_s40137_023_00365_w
crossref_primary_10_3390_app11031006
crossref_primary_10_1111_iju_14779
Cites_doi 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1997.tb00458.x
10.1148/rg.24si045504
10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68829-5
10.1007/s00330-002-1758-7
10.1080/02841850802631991
10.1016/S0022-5347(17)70926-3
10.1007/s00330-002-1662-1
10.1016/0090-4295(81)90026-1
10.1007/s10140-008-0773-7
10.3109/00016922909133867
10.2147/MDER.S3944
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright (c) RSNA, 2009.
Copyright_xml – notice: (c) RSNA, 2009.
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
AAYXX
CITATION
7X8
DOI 10.1148/radiol.2522082064
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
CrossRef
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
CrossRef
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE
MEDLINE - Academic
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1527-1315
EndPage 246
ExternalDocumentID 10_1148_radiol_2522082064
19561259
Genre Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Comparative Study
GroupedDBID ---
.55
.GJ
123
18M
1CY
1KJ
29P
2WC
34G
39C
4.4
476
53G
5RE
6NX
6PF
7FM
AAEJM
AAQQT
AAWTL
ABHFT
ABOCM
ACFQH
ACGFO
ACJAN
ACRZS
ADBBV
AENEX
AENYM
AFFNX
AFOSN
AJJEV
AJWWR
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
BAWUL
CGR
CS3
CUY
CVF
DIK
DU5
E3Z
EBS
ECM
EIF
EJD
F5P
F9R
G8K
GX1
H13
I4R
J5H
KO8
L7B
LMP
LSO
MJL
MV1
N4W
NPM
OK1
P2P
R.V
RKKAF
RXW
SJN
TAE
TR2
TRS
TWZ
W8F
WH7
WOQ
X7M
YQI
YQJ
ZGI
ZKG
ZVN
ZXP
AAYXX
CITATION
7X8
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-3f2468eaa85b471e9d9457bad05881704b3b4044cc02fd65c788ac29730ff32c3
ISSN 0033-8419
IngestDate Fri Aug 16 07:17:31 EDT 2024
Fri Aug 23 01:42:23 EDT 2024
Sat Sep 28 07:55:46 EDT 2024
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Language English
License (c) RSNA, 2009.
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c365t-3f2468eaa85b471e9d9457bad05881704b3b4044cc02fd65c788ac29730ff32c3
Notes ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-News-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
PMID 19561259
PQID 67432792
PQPubID 23479
PageCount 7
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_67432792
crossref_primary_10_1148_radiol_2522082064
pubmed_primary_19561259
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2009-Jul
2009-07-00
20090701
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2009-07-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 07
  year: 2009
  text: 2009-Jul
PublicationDecade 2000
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle Radiology
PublicationTitleAlternate Radiology
PublicationYear 2009
References R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R12
R11
R13
R1
References_xml – ident: R12
– ident: R6
  doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.1997.tb00458.x
– ident: R1
  doi: 10.1148/rg.24si045504
– ident: R7
  doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68829-5
– ident: R2
  doi: 10.1007/s00330-002-1758-7
– ident: R11
  doi: 10.1080/02841850802631991
– ident: R5
  doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)70926-3
– ident: R9
  doi: 10.1007/s00330-002-1662-1
– ident: R3
  doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(81)90026-1
– ident: R13
  doi: 10.1007/s10140-008-0773-7
– ident: R4
  doi: 10.3109/00016922909133867
– ident: R10
  doi: 10.2147/MDER.S3944
– ident: R8
SSID ssj0014587
Score 2.0755057
Snippet To compare examination adequacy and patient discomfort during retrograde urethrography (RUG) performed by using the conventional balloon method versus those of...
PURPOSETo compare examination adequacy and patient discomfort during retrograde urethrography (RUG) performed by using the conventional balloon method versus...
SourceID proquest
crossref
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 240
SubjectTerms Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Catheterization - methods
Contrast Media - administration & dosage
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Urethral Stricture - diagnostic imaging
Urography - methods
Young Adult
Title Urethrography in men: conventional technique versus clamp method
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19561259
https://search.proquest.com/docview/67432792
Volume 252
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lb9NAEF6FIiEuiDfh6QMnJAdnH_aaE20CKkXmAInUm7Vej6Uc6lSJfeGn8GuZ8W6cpGklysWKrM0kmfkyntmdb4ax9ynn4woQvLoUmKCUsQgLaU2I-DAwTstxUhF3OPsRn87l2bk6Hwz-7FQttU0xsr-v5ZX8j1XxHtqVWLK3sGwvFG_ga7QvXtHCeP0nG89XQGMOXNNp2rnIoCvUmOyWks_6Lq1UgdGuaQ7mxSUupdHRu7HpT1Mu9jbZT2BVdwfp4zADIpU4Ggd6hOnomjW_wBPMriw5pkGHdrEkIbT0RNSeJdR075z2-Jx0Zjbr8AxTYuOEZaZufVn_ZnMi7QtZe4crRKil94rgfSxPwrFwLM6NE-aKH6DNu1TXzsk_nbnbsDx0_JLIDKtOUSMUxim0cf3R95tsX3n49SWJjqCtcyci34q4w-7yJFVULjr99r0_oZJKu36s_gf6E3MU8fHgW-zHPDckMl1AM3vIHvhMJDh2sHrEBlA_ZvcyX2vxhH3eQ1ewqANE16dgF1tBj63AYSvosBU4bD1l869fZpPT0M_bCK2IVROKCrWrwRitCoxZIC1TqZLClJHS1MdRFqKQkZTWRrwqY2UTrY2l4WdRVQluxTN2VC9reMECiX__UkSQWhVLsKAhLhTpwwC3tuJD9mGjkfzStVXJb7TAkL3b6CxH50cnWqaGZbvOiUFDHTCH7LlT5VYYEbYxtX95mw96xe5vQfyaHTWrFt5gzNkUbzvj_wX5QXxD
link.rule.ids 315,786,790,27955,27956
linkProvider Flying Publisher
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Urethrography+in+Men%3A+Conventional+Technique+versus+Clamp+Method&rft.jtitle=Radiology&rft.au=Bern%C3%A1-Mestre%2C+Juan+D.&rft.au=Bern%C3%A1-Serna%2C+Juan+D.&rft.au=Aparicio-Mes%C3%B3n%2C+Mart%C3%ADn&rft.au=Canteras-Jordana%2C+Manuel&rft.date=2009-07-01&rft.issn=0033-8419&rft.eissn=1527-1315&rft.volume=252&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=240&rft.epage=246&rft_id=info:doi/10.1148%2Fradiol.2522082064&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1148_radiol_2522082064
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0033-8419&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0033-8419&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0033-8419&client=summon