Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uroflowmetry in elderly men

  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In the evaluation of lower-urinary-tract symptoms, uroflowmetry has played a major role for decades due to its noninvasiveness and simplicity to perform. However, several pitfalls have to be taken into account as mentioned in this review. They include artifacts, circadian changes, observer variation, minimal volume, association with infravesical obstruction, relevant variables, reference values, and clinical applicability. Thus, uroflow should be interpreted with proper caution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abrams PH (1977) Prostatism and prostatectomy: the value of urine flow rate measurement in the preoperative assessment for operation. J Urol 117:70–71

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abrams P (1994) New words for old: lower urinary tract symptoms for “prostatism”. BMJ 308:929–930

    Google Scholar 

  3. Abrams PH, Griffiths DJ (1979) The assessment of prostatic obstruction from urodynamic measurements and from residual urine. Br J Urol 51:129–134

    Google Scholar 

  4. Abrams PH, Farrar DJ, Turner-Warwick RT, Whiteside CG, Feneley RCL (1979) The results of prostatectomy: a symptomatic and urodynamic analysis of 152 patients. J Urol 121:640–642

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chancellor MB, Blaivas JG, Kaplan SA, Axelrod S (1991) Bladder outlet obstruction versus impaired detrusor contractility: the role of uroflow. J Urol 145:810–812

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drach GW, Layton TN, Binard WJ (1979) Male peak urinary flow rate: relationships to volume voided and age. J Urol 122:210–214

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Golomb J, Lindner A, Siegel Y, Korczak D (1992) Variability and circadian changes in home uroflowmetry in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia compared to normal controls. J Urol 147:1044–1047

    Google Scholar 

  8. Grino PB, Bruskewitz R, Blaivas JG, Siroky MB, Andersen JT, Cook T, Stoner E (1993) Maximum urinary flow rate by uroflowmetry: automatic or visual interpretation. J Urol 149:339–341

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jensen KM-E, Jørgensen JB, Mogensen P (1985) Reproducibility of uroflowmetry variables in elderly males. Urol Res 13:237–239

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jensen KM-E, Jørgensen JB, Mogensen P (1988) Urodynamics in prostatism. I. Prognostic value of uroflowmetry. Scand J Urol Nephrol 22:109–117

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jensen KM-E, Jørgensen JB, Mogensen P (1988) Urodynamics in prostatism. II. Prognostic value of pressure-flow study combined with stop-flow test. Scand J Urol Nephrol [Suppl] 114:72–77

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jørgensen JB, Jensen KM-E, Bille-Brahe NE, Mogensen P (1986) Uroflowmetry in asymptomatic elderly males. Br J Urol 58:390–395

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jørgensen JB, Jensen KM-E, Klarskov P, Bernstein I, Abel I, Mogensen P (1990) Intra- and inter-observer variations in classification of urinary flow curve patterns. Neurourol Urodyn 9:535–539

    Google Scholar 

  14. J/orgensen JB, Jensen KM-E, Mogensen P, Klarskov P, Andersen JT (1992) Urinary flow curve patterns and their prognostic value in males over the age of 50 years. Neurourol Urodyn 11:473–481

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jørgensen JB, Mortensen T, Hummelmose T, Sjørslev J (1993) Mechanical versus visual evaluation of urinary flow curves and patterns. Urol Int 51:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kaufman JJ (1957) A new recording uroflowmeter: a simple automatic device for measuring voiding velocity. J Urol 78:97–102

    Google Scholar 

  17. Klarskov P (1974) Urological diagnosis by investigation of the urinary flow with the Glostrup flowmeter. Ugeslr Laeg 136:2684–2685

    Google Scholar 

  18. Layton TN, Drach GW (1981) Selectivity of peak versus average male urinary flow rates. J Urol 125:839–841

    Google Scholar 

  19. Matzkin H, Zwaag R van der, Chen Y, Patterson LA, Braf Z, Soloway MS (1993) How reliable is a single measurement of urinary flow in the diagnosis of obstruction in benign prostatic hyperplasia? Br J Urol 72:181–186

    Google Scholar 

  20. Meyhoff H-H, Glahn BE (1991) Uroflowmetry. Methods Clin Urodyn 1:2–6

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nishimoto K, Iimori H, Ikemoto S, Hayahara N (1994) Criteria for differentiation of normal and abnormal uroflowmetrograms in adult men. Br J Urol 73:494–497

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rollema HJ (1981) Uroflowmetry in males. Reference values and clinical application in benign prostatic hypertrophy. Drukkerij van Denderen B.V., Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ryall RL, Marshall VR (1982) Normal peak urinary flow rates obtained from small voided volumes can provide a reliable assessment of bladder function. J Urol 127:484–488

    Google Scholar 

  24. Siroky MB, Olsson CA, Krane RJ (1979) The flow rate nomogram: I. Development. J Urol 122:665–668

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Skejby Sygehus, University of Aarhus, Brendstrupgaardsvej, DK-8200, Aarhus N, Denmark

    K. M. -E. Jensen

Authors
  1. K. M. -E. Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jensen, K.M.E. Uroflowmetry in elderly men. World J Urol 13, 21–23 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182661

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182661

Keywords

Search

Navigation