Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons (Jan 2023)

Voiding pressures in boys: Pdetmax versus pdetQmax – Does it make a difference?

  • Poonam Guha Vaze,
  • Subhasis Saha,
  • Rajiv Sinha

DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_51_23
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 28, no. 4
pp. 282 – 287

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: Invasive urodynamics (UDS) is a standard investigation in children. Studies measuring voiding pressures in children use varied nomenclatures and quote a wide range of voiding pressures. Thus, voiding pressures in children are not considered reliable and they do not find any place in the pediatric diagnostic armamentarium. On the contrary, adult studies have well-defined nomograms and standard values which make voiding studies indispensable in the diagnosis of voiding dysfunctions in adults. The difference primarily lies in the uniformity of parameters assessed in adults and the contrasting heterogeneity in the pediatric literature. Objective: The objective of this study was to study the voiding parameters observed during UDS in boys. Study Design: We retrospectively reviewed the pressure flow data obtained during conventional invasive UDS in 106 neurologically normal boys (6 months–16 years) who had different indications for urodynamics. The values of Pdetmax and PdetQmax were analyzed and compared with the existing data of pressure flow studies in children. Results: Pdetmax decreased with age whereas PdetQmax was independent of age. The difference between the values of Pdetmax and PdetQmax was more in the younger kids. The wide range of voiding detrusor pressure (Pdet) in the existing pediatric literature is similar to the values of Pdetmax observed in our study, whereas the value of PdetQmax is much lower. Discussion: The values of Pdetmax observed in this study are similar to the values of “maximum Pdet during voiding” documented in previous studies and are determined by detrusor contractility and functional/dynamic contraction of outflow during voiding. PdetQmax has been documented in very few pediatric studies and is significantly less than Pdetmax. Further prospective studies are needed to corroborate UDS findings with radiologic/cystoscopic findings to create nomograms of voiding parameters in children. Conclusion: Existing literature on pediatric voiding studies mentions voiding pressures during variable phases of void (usually Pdetmax) and the values have been very heterogeneous, making voiding pressure-flow studies unreliable in children. PdetQmax values are much lower than values quoted as “standard” pressures and are age independent. The use of PdetQmax instead of PdetMax may make voiding pressures in children more reproducible and informative.

Keywords