Skip to main content Accessibility help

Urinary Tract Infection Following Instrumentation for Urodynamic Testing

  • Richard J. Hamill (a1), Charles E. Wright (a1), Nita Andres (a1) and Maureen A. Koza (a1)


After identifying a temporal cluster of urinary tract infections in patients who had undergone urodynamic procedures, we examined the techniques within the urodynamic laboratory and retrospectively reviewed charts of all 155 patients tested in the previous six months. The rate of acquired urinary tract infections was 18.7%. Risk factors for infection included undergoing cystometrograms and being subject to the first procedure performed in a day. Technical errors in the performance of the urodynamic studies included failure to completely disassemble the apparatus upon completion of a procedure, failure to use sterile components, and lapses in aseptic technique. Bacteria implicated in the outbreak were isolated from tubing, transducers, and flush solutions. After the institution of appropriate technique, all patients tested in the subsequent six months were followed. The rate of acquired urinary tract infection dropped to 5%. Urodynamic apparatus should be completely disassembled following the completion of a procedure; reassembly using sterile components should occur immediately prior to the next procedure; aseptic technique should be maintained; and patients should undergo routine urine screening before a procedure. Surveillance of urodynamic procedures may reveal correctable flaws in technique.


Corresponding author

Section of Infectious Diseases, V.A. Medical Center (151B), 2002 Holcombe Blvd. Houston, TX 77211


Hide All
1.Bergman, A, McCarthy, TA: Antibiotic prophylaxis after instrumentation for urodynamic testing. Br J Urol. 1983;55:508569.
2.Powell, PH, Lewis, P, Shepherd, AM, et al: The morbidity of urodynamic investigations, in Proceedings of the XIth Annual Meeting, International Continence Society Lund, Sweden. 1981, pp 140141.
3.Walter, S. Veilsgaard, K: Diagnostic catheterisation and bacteriuria in women with urinary incontinence. Br J Urol. 1978;50:106108.
4.Glenister, H, Holton, J, Teall, A: Urinary tract pressure recording equipment as a source of infection. J Hosp Infect. 1985;6:224226.
5.Talbot, GH, Doorley, M, Banner, MP: Urosepsis associated with vid-eourodynamic studies. Arn J Infect Cowry. 1984;12:260270.
6.Simmons, B: Guidelines for prevention of infections related to intravasculai pressure-monitoring systems. Inject Control. 1982;3:6872.
7.Maki, DG: Growth properties of microorganisms in infusion fluids and methods of detection, in Phillips, Meers, PD, D'Arcy, PF (eds): Microbiologic Hazard, of Intravenous Therapy. Lancaster, England, MTP Press, 1977, p 13.
8.Maki, DG, Hassemer, CA: Endemic rate of fluid contamination and related septicemia in arterial pressure monitoring. Am J Med. 1981;70:733738.
9.Shinozaki, T, Deane, RS, Maznzan, JE, et al: Bacterial contamination of arterial lines: A prospective study. JAMA. 1983;249:223225.
10.Tanaglio, EA, Miller, ER, Lyon, RP, et al: Spastic striated external-sphincter araz urinary tract infection in girls. Br J Urol. 1971;43:6982.
11.Nergardh, A. Boreus, LO, Holme, T: The inhibitory effect of coli-endotoxin on alpha-adrenergic receptor function in the lower urinary tract. Scared J Urol Nephrol. 1977;11:219224.

Urinary Tract Infection Following Instrumentation for Urodynamic Testing

  • Richard J. Hamill (a1), Charles E. Wright (a1), Nita Andres (a1) and Maureen A. Koza (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed