International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 899–903 | Cite as

Uroflowmetry: its current clinical utility for women

Current Opinion / Update


Uroflowmetry, the simple, non-invasive measurement of urine flow over time during micturition, has a long and interesting history, clear definitions, a clear purpose in screening for voiding difficulty and, most importantly, technical accuracy. Data interpretation is currently limiting its clinical utility, despite appropriate analysis being available in long-standing existing research. The main clinically important numerical parameters are the maximum and average urine flow rates and the voided volume. Urine flow rates are strongly dependent on voided volume. Reference to established (Liverpool) nomograms will most accurately correct for this dependency. Nomograms will also optimise the validation of uroflowmetry data and the accurate assessment of its normality, compared with fixed urine flow rates and “cutoffs” for voided volume. Abnormally slow urine flow (under the 10th centile Liverpool Nomograms) is the most clinically significant abnormality. Repeat uroflowmetry, concomitant post-void residual measurement and voiding cystometry studies are appropriate options for evaluating any abnormal uroflowmetry.


Uroflowmetry Urodynamics Urine flow rate Voided volume Liverpool uroflow nomogram Voiding difficulty 


Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Rehfisch E (1897) Ueber den mechanismus des harnblasenverschlusses under der harnentkerung. Virchow Arch Path Anat 150:1111–1151Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ryall RL, Marshall VR (1983) Measurement of urinary flow rate. Urology 22:556–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gronwell H (1925) Blastomningens mechanism. Sven Lakartidn 22:577Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drake WM Jr (1948) The uroflowmeter: an aid to the study of the urinary tract. J Urol 59:650–658PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Von Garrelts B (1956) Analysis of micturition. A new method of recording the voiding of the bladder. Acta Chir Scand 112:326–340Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rowan D, McKenzie AL, McNee SG, Glen ES (1977) A technical and clinical evaluation of the Disa uroflowmeter. Brit J Urol 49:285–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peter WP, Drake WM Jr (1958) Uroflowmetric observations in gynaecologic patients. JAMA 166:721–724Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farrar DJ, Osborne JL (1984) Voiding dysfunction in women. In: Mundy AR, Stephensen TP, Wein AJ (eds) Urodynamics: principles, practice and application, chapter 23. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 242–248Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bergman A, Bhatia NN (1985) Uroflowmetry for predicting postoperative voiding difficulties in women with stress urinary incontinence. Brit J Obstet Gynaecol 92:835–838Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Axelrod SL, Blaivas JG (1987) Bladder neck obstruction in women. J Urol 137:497–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torrens MJ (1987) Urodynamics. In: Torrens MJ (ed) The physiology of the lower urinary tract, chapter 9. Springer, Berlin, pp 277–307Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bates P, Glen ES, Griffiths D, for the International Continence Society et al (1977) Second report on the standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function, procedures related to the evaluation of micturition—flow rate, pressure measurement, symbols. Scand J Urol Nephrol 11:197–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haylen BT, Lee J (2008) The accuracy of measurement of the postvoid residual in women. Int Urogynecol J DOI 10.1007/s00192-008-0568-0
  14. 14.
    Wyndaele J-JJM (2006) Uroflowmetry. In: Cardozo LD, Staskin D (eds) Textbook of female urology and urogynecology. Informa Healthcare, Oxford, pp 216–221Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nitti VW, Fischer MC (2008) Urodynamics. In: Bent AE, Cundiff GW, Swift SE (eds) Urogynecology and pelvic floor dysfunction. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, p 79Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moore KH, Richmond DH, Sutherst JR et al (1991) Crouching over a toilet seat: prevalence amongst British gynaecological outpatients and its effect on micturition. Brit J Urol 98:569–572Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Massey JA, Abrams PH (1988) Obstructed voiding in the female. Brit J Urol 61:36–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fantl JA, Smith PJ, Schneider V et al (1982) Fluid weight uroflowmetry in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 145:1017–1024Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Costantini E, Mearini E, Pajoncini C et al (2003) Uroflowmetry in female voiding disturbances. Neurourol Urodyn 22:569–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fantl JA (1984) Clinical uroflowmetry. In: Ostergard DR (ed) Gynecologic urology and urodynamics: theory and practice, chapter 11. 2nd edn. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 125–132Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haylen BT, Ashby D, Sutherst JR et al (1989) Maximum and average urine flow rates in normal male and female populations—the Liverpool Nomograms. Brit J Urol 64:30–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haylen BT, Law MG, Frazer MI, Schulz S (1999) Urine flow rates and residual urine volumes in urogynaecology patients. Int Urogynecol J 6:378–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haylen BT, Parys BT, Anyaegbunam WI, Ashby D (1990) Urine flow rates in male and female urodynamic patients compared with the Liverpool Nomograms. Brit J Urol. 65:483–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ryall RL, Marshall VR (1982a) Normal peak urinary flow rate obtained from small voided volumes can provide a reliable assessment of bladder function. J Urol 127:484–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Chaiken DC (2000) Bladder outflow obstruction in women: definition and characteristics. Neurourol Urodyn 19:213–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dawson T, Lawton V, Adams E, Richmond D (2007) Factors predictive of post-TVT voiding dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 18:1297–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bottacini MR, Gleason DJ (1980) Urodynamic norms in women: normals vs stress incontinents. J Urol 124:659–661Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haylen BT, Krishnan S, Schulz S et al (2007) Has the true prevalence of voiding difficulty in urogynecology patients been underestimated? Int Urogynecol J 18:53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haylen BT (2007) The empty bladder. Int Urogynecol J 18:237–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryall RL, Marshall VR (1982) The effect of a urinary catheter on the measurement of maximum urine flow rate. J Urol 128:429–432PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard T. Haylen
    • 1
  • Vivian Yang
    • 2
  • Vanessa Logan
    • 1
  1. 1.St Vincent’s ClinicDarlinghurstAustralia
  2. 2.St Vincent’s General HospitalDarlinghurstAustralia

Personalised recommendations