Characterizing voiding experiences of men choosing seated and standing positions

The Use of Uroflowmetry as a Diagnostic Test

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Uroflowmetry is widely used for initial non-invasive evaluation of lower urinary tract disorders. Current clinical use is mostly restricted to a scrutiny of the maximum flow rate and uroflow pattern recorded by a conventional flowmeter in a health care facility. There are several advancements in our understanding and in available technologies that promise to transform clinical utilization of this simple test.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several aspects of the uroflow test in addition to maximum flow rate and uroflow pattern show potential diagnostic utility. This includes flow acceleration, uroflow indices, uroflow-electromyography including lag time, stop uroflow test, and uroflow-based nomograms. There are initial attempts to use artificial intelligence in analysis. There is also new data with regard to factors influencing variability of uroflow testing that might influence the diagnostic value in as yet uncertain ways including diurnal variability, postural variability, locational variability, and operator variability. There are new technologies for uroflow testing in a home environment allowing for easy repetition. However, there are several challenges owing to a paucity of clinical data and standardization. There are also critical lacunae in terminology that need to be addressed. There are exciting new advancements in the field of uroflowmetry. However, there is need to standardize and validate the newer uroflow tracing analyses and technologies.

Through the zipper or pants down: Does it change uroflowmetry parameters in healthy males?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if voiding through the zipper or voiding pants down would make any difference with regard to uroflowmetry parameters and postvoiding residual urine (PVR) volumes in healthy males with no lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

METHODS

Healthy males over 18 years of age with no LUTS were prospectively evaluated using a uroflowmetry test. Each individual was asked to void through the zipper (group 1) and pants down (group 2) at different times. The uroflowmetry test was repeated if the voided volume did not exceed 150 mL. Uroflowmetry results such as voided volume, maximum flow rate (Qmax), average flow rate (Qave), and duration of voiding were noted. PVR volume was assessed using ultrasonography. Electromyography was not used. Data are shown as mean ± standard deviation. For statistical analysis, a paired t test was used to analyze parametric parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 44 males were enrolled. The median age of the individuals was 24 (range 18-44 years). There were no statistically significant differences between the two measurements in terms of voided volume (307 ± 121 mL vs 325 ± 145 mL, P = .365) and duration of voiding (25 ± 11 s vs 23.8 ± 11.6 s, P = .526). However, there were statistically significant differences in Qmax (26.6 ± 6.7 mL/s vs 30.0 ± 8.2 mL/s, P = .001), Qave (14.4 ± 3.6 mL/s vs 16.2 ± 5.1 mL/s, P = .009), and PVR volumes (23.9 ± 19.4 mL vs 3.9 ± 9.6 mL, P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

Voiding pants down shows higher flow rates and lower PVR than voiding through the zipper in individuals with no LUTS. Future studies with a larger number of individuals (including those with LUTS) and a broader age range cohort are required for solid conclusions.