Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Uroflowmetric parameters measured by spontaneous uroflowmetry and instrumented uroflowmetry in the same patient

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to evaluate the obstructive effects of microtip transducer catheters on flowmetry parameters, 156 patients had a spontaneous uroflowmetry (SU) followed by an instrumented uroflowmetry (IU), with intravesical pressure recording for comparison of maximum flow rate (Qmax), corrected maximum flow rate for volume voided (Qmax.corr.), time to maximum flow rate (TQmax), and flow curve patterns. With SU and IU, Qmax values were 26±11 ml/s compared with 21±11 ml/s (P<0.001), Qmax.corr. as 29±10 m/s compared with 21±11 ml/s (P<0.0001) and TQmax values were 11±9 s compared with 30±52 s (P<0.0001). Vesical opening pressure (VOP) was higher in patients with a low TQmax (< 15 s) (23 cmH2O±20) than with a higher TQmax (17 cmH2O±16) (P<0.04). Curve patterns with both methods show good correlations in 71% of patients, no correlations in 14% and doubtful correlations in 15%. The occlusive effect of the catheter during micturition induces a decrease in Qmax and Qmax.corr. and an increase in TQmax values, due to a lowered VOP in many patients, but little difference in curve pattern interpretation.

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 P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL et al. Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function recommended by the International Continence Society. Int Urogynecol J 1990;1:45–58

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bhatia NN, Bergman A. Use of preoperative uroflowmetry and simultaneous urethrocystometry for predicting risk of prolonged postoperative bladder drainage. Urology 1986;28:440–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fantl JA, Smith PJ, Schneider V et al. Fluid weight uroflowmetry in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983;145:1017–1020

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stanton SL, Ozsoy C, Hilton P. Voiding difficulties in the female: prevalence, clinical and urodynamic review. Obstet Gynecol 1983;61:144–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blaivas JG. Techniques of evaluation. In: Yalla SV, McGuire EJ, Elbadawi A, Blaivas JG (eds). Neurourology and Urodynamics. New York: Macmillan, 1988;166–174

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drach GW, Ignatoff J, Layton T. Peak urinary flow rate: observations in female subjects and comparison to male subjects. J Urol 1979;122:215–220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Meunier P. Study of micturition parameters in young healthy adults using a uroflowmetry method. Eur J Clin Invest 1983;13:25–32

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Karl C, Gerlach R, Hannapel J et al. Uroflow measurements: their information yield in a long-term investigation of pre and postoperative measurements. Urol Int 1986;41:270–275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moore KH, Richmond D. Crouching over the toilet seat: prevalence and effect upon micturition. Neurourol Urodyn 1989;8:422–424

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bergman A, Bhatia NN. Uroflowmetry: spontaneous versus instrumented. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;150:788–790

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Meyer S, de Grandi P, Schmidt N et al. The effect of catheter diameter on the urethral cough pressure profile of continent and incontinent patients. Int Urogynecol J 1992;3:2–7

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ryall JR, Marshall VR. The effect of urethral catheter on the measurement of maximum urinary flow rate. J Urol 1982;128:429–432

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Griffiths JR, Schloltmeijer RJ. Precise urodynamic assessment of neonatal and distal urethral stenosis in girls. Neurourol Urodyn 1982;1:89–92

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fantl JA, Farrel SA. Clinical uroflowmetry. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE, (eds.) Urogynecology and urodynamics, theory and practice. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1991;108–114

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bhatia NN, Bergman A. Uroflowmetry for predicting postoperative voiding difficulties in women with stress urinary incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985;92:835–838

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lose G, Jorgensen L, Mortensen SO et al. Voiding difficulties after colposuspension. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:33–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shah PJR. Pathophysiology of voiding disorders. In: Drife JO, Hilton P, Stanton SL (eds.) Micturition. London: Springer Verlag 1990;163–172

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urodynamic Unit, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, CHUV, rue du Bugnon 1000, Lausanne, Switzerland

    S. Meyer, P. De Grandi, N. Schmidt & W. Sanzeni

Authors
  1. S. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. De Grandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Sanzeni
    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

Meyer, S., De Grandi, P., Schmidt, N. et al. Uroflowmetric parameters measured by spontaneous uroflowmetry and instrumented uroflowmetry in the same patient. Int Urogynecol J 4, 274–277 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372736

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00372736

Keywords

Search

Navigation