Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 10/2018

01-10-2018 | Original Article

Evaluation of intra-individual test–re-test variability of uroflowmetry in healthy women and women suffering from stress, urge, and mixed urinary incontinence

Authors: Libor Lunacek, Marcel Gärtner, Jan Krhut, David Mika, Radek Sykora, Peter Zvara

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 10/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective was to evaluate the intra-individual variability of uroflowmetry (UFM) in healthy control subjects and women suffering from stress, urge, and mixed urinary incontinence.

Methods

A total of 35 healthy controls (group A) and 105 women suffering from urinary incontinence were enrolled in the study. Thirty-five women suffered from stress urinary incontinence (group B), 35 women suffered from mixed urinary incontinence (group C), and 35 women with overactive bladder both dry and wet (group D). All participants were asked to perform UFM measurement three times. The following parameters were analyzed: voided volume (VV), peak flow (Qmax), average flow (Qave), volume-corrected peak flow cQmax (cQmax = Qmax/2√ VV), volume-corrected average flow (cQave = Qave/2√ VV), and postvoid residual volume (PVR).
Statistical analysis was performed using the analysis of variance on repeated measurements. Relative error was calculated using variation coefficients reported as a percentage of the average. All descriptive characteristics were reported as means ± standard deviation (SD). p values ≤0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

No statistically significant intra-individual difference in any of the recorded parameters was identified among the three UFM recordings in groups A, C, and D. The intra-individual variability of the following parameters reached statistical significance in patients suffering from stress urinary incontinence (group B): Qmax (p = 0.0016), Qave (p = 0.0005), and cQave (p = 0.0389). A significant difference was only observed in comparison between the first and second consecutive recordings.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence supporting the high yield and good intra-individual reproducibility of UFM.
Literature
1.
Peter WP, Drake WM Jr. Uroflowmetric observation in gynaecologic patients. JAMA. 1958;166:721–4.CrossRef
2.
Fantl JA, Smith PJ, Schneider V, et al. Fluid weight uroflowmetry in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145(8):1017–24.CrossRef
3.
Haylen BT, Yang V, Logan V. Uroflowmetry: its current clinical utility for women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(7):899–903.CrossRef
4.
Haylen BT, Ashby D, Sutherst JR, et al. Maximum and average urine flow rates in normal male and female populations—the Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol. 1989;64:30–8.CrossRef
5.
Barapatre Y, Agarwal MM, Singh SK, et al. Uroflowmetry in healthy women: development and validation of flow-volume and corrected flow-age nomograms. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:1003–9.CrossRef
6.
Feneley MR, Dunsmuir WD, Pearce J, Kirby RS. Reproducibility of uroflow measurement: experience during a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of doxazosin in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 1996;47:658–63.CrossRef
7.
Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, et al. International continence society. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:261–74.CrossRef
8.
9.
Al Afraa T, Mahfouz W, Campeau L, et al. Normal lower urinary tract assessment in women. I. Uroflowmetry and post-void residual, pad tests, and bladder diaries. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:681–5.CrossRef
10.
Carr LK, Webster GD. Bladder outlet obstruction in women. Urol Clin N Am. 1996;23(3):385–91.CrossRef
11.
Onal B, Silva A, Buldu I, et al. Voiding dysfunction due to multiple sclerosis: a large scale retrospective analysis. Int Brazil J Urol. 2009;35:326–33.CrossRef
12.
Erekson EA, Sung VW, DiSilvestro PA, Myers DL. Urinary symptoms and impact on quality of life in women after treatment for endometrial cancer. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:159–63.CrossRef
13.
Wang KH, Neimark M, Davila GW. Voiding dysfunction following TVT procedure. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002;13:353–7.CrossRef
14.
Steinberg BJ, Finamore PS, Sastry DN, et al. Postoperative urinary retention following vaginal mesh procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:1491–8.CrossRef
15.
Rusavy Z, Rivaux G, Fatton B, Cayrac M, Boileau L, de Tayrac R. Voiding difficulties after vaginal mesh cystocele repair: does the perivesical dissection matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1385–90.CrossRef
16.
Bergman A, Bhatia NN. Uroflowmetry for predicting postoperative voiding difficulties in women with stress urinary incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;92(8):835–8.CrossRef
17.
Hong B, Park S, Kim HS, Choo MS. Factors predictive of urinary retention after a tension-free vaginal tape procedure for female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2003;170(3):852–6.CrossRef
18.
Ahmed S, McNanley A, Perevich M, Glantz JC, Buchsbaum G. Uroflow measurements in healthy female volunteers. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16(6):327–30.CrossRef
19.
Gupta NP, Kumar A, Kumar R. Does position affect uroflowmetry parameters in women? Urol Int. 2008;80:37–40.CrossRef
20.
Chou TP, Gorton E, Stanton SL, et al. Can uroflowmetry patterns in women be reliably interpreted? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2000;11:142–7.CrossRef
21.
Gehrich A, Stany MP, Fischer JR, Buller J, Zahn CM. Establishing a mean postvoid residual volume in asymptomatic perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:827–329.CrossRef
22.
Griffiths CJ, Murray A, Ramsden PD. Accuracy and repeatability of bladder volume measurement using ultrasonic imaging. J Urol. 1986;136(4):808–12.CrossRef
23.
Costantini E, Mearini E, Pajoncini C, Biscotto S, Bini V, Porena M. Uroflowmetry in female voiding disturbances. Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22(6):569–73.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of intra-individual test–re-test variability of uroflowmetry in healthy women and women suffering from stress, urge, and mixed urinary incontinence
Authors
Libor Lunacek
Marcel Gärtner
Jan Krhut
David Mika
Radek Sykora
Peter Zvara
Publication date
01-10-2018
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3571-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

International Urogynecology Journal 10/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

Total vaginectomy and urethral lengthening at time of neourethral prelamination in transgender men

Original Article

Prospective evaluation of the safety and feasibility of a pelvic floor dilator during active labor

Original Article

Uterus-sparing vaginolaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse

Original Article

Assessing exercises recommended for women at risk of pelvic floor disorders using multivariate statistical techniques

Original Article

Could the correct side of mediolateral episiotomy be determined according to anal sphincter EMG?

Original Article

Demand and capacity to integrate pelvic organ prolapse and genital fistula services in low-resource settings