Importance of uroflowmetry in lower urinary tract symptoms diagnostics

Česká verzia

Authors: M. Gärtner ¹; J. Krhut ^2,3; K. Zvarová ⁵; M. Juráková ¹; M. Navratilova ¹; P. Zvara ^3,4
Authors place of work: Porodnicko-gynekologická klinika OU a FN, Ostrava, přednosta doc. MUDr. V. Unzeitig, CSc. ¹; Urologické oddělení FN, Ostrava, primář doc. MUDr. J. Krhut, Ph. D. ²; Katedra chirurgických oborů LF OU, Ostrava, přednosta doc. MUDr. P. Zonča, Ph. D., FRCS. ³; Division of Urology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA, Division Chief M. K. Plante, MD, FRCS, FACS. ⁴; Fyziologický ústav, Slovenská zdravotnícka univerzita, Bratislava, prednosta doc. MUDr. I. Béder, CSc. ⁵
Published in the journal: Ceska Gynekol 2015; 80(3): 204-209

Summary

Objective:
To summarize the current state of knowledge on the use of uroflowmetry in diagnosis of lower urinary tract dysfunction in women.

Design:
Review article.

Setting:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Ostrava and Faculty of Medicine, Ostrava University.

Methods:
Literature review.

Results and conclusion:
Lower urinary tract dysfunction is associated with debilitating symptoms, which negatively affect the quality of life of a large number of patients, and represent a significant health problem. Inaccurate diagnosis leads to delayed therapy, which could cause disease progression and complications. It has been recently recognized that affected patients express a wide variety of clinical phenotypes. Advancements in diagnostic procedures may allow for individualized treatment and improved treatment outcomes. Diagnostic procedures recommended for patients with suspected lower urinary tract disease include directed medical history, urinalysis, voiding diary, as well as non-invasive and invasive urodynamic methods. Additional diagnostic tests may be used in select cases. Uroflowmetry is a basic urodynamic method used for screening. It represents a standard component used in the diagnostic process for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Sonouroflowmetry is a new method, which evaluates the urinary flow and lower urinary tract symptoms in a non-invasive manner by analysing the sound generated by a stream of urine striking the water surface in the toilet bowl.

Keywords:
uroflowmetry, sonouroflow, lower urinary tract symptoms

Zdroje

1. Abrams, P. Urgency: the key to definic the overactive bladder. BJU Int, 2005, 96, suppl. 1, p. 13.

2. Barry, MJ., Girman, CJ., O'Leary, MP., et al. Using repeated measures of symptom score, uroflowmetry and prostate specific antigen in the clinical management of prostate disease. Benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment outcomes study group. J Urol, 1995, 153, p. 99–103.

3. Blaivas, J., Chancellor, MB., Weiss, J., Verhaaren, M. Atlas of urodynamics. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing, Inc., 2007, p. 4.

4. Coyne, KS., Kaplan, SA., Chapple, CR., et al. Risk factors and comorbid conditions associated with lower urinary tract symptoms: EpiLUTS. BJU Int, 2009, 103, suppl 3, p. 24–32.

5. Coyne, KS., Sexton, CC., Thompson, CL., et al. The prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the USA, the UK and Sweden: results from the Epidemiology of LUTS (EpiLUTS) study. BJU Int, 2009, 104, p. 352–360.

6. Fantl, JA., Smith, PJ., Schneider, V., et al. Fluid weight uroflowmetry in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1983, 145, 8, p. 1017–1024.

7. Gärtner, M., Krhut, J., Juráková, M., et al. Intraindividuální variabilita uroflowmetrického vyšetření u žen. Čes Gynek, 2014, 79, 4, s. 321–325.

8. 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, 1, p. 30–38.

9. Haylen, BT., Yang, V., Logan, V. Uroflowmetry: its current clinical utility for women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2008,19, 7, p. 899–903.

10. Hill, SR., Fayyad, AM., Jones, GR. Diabetes mellitus and female lower urinary tract symptoms: a review. Neurourol Urodyn, 2008, 27, p. 362–367.

11. Choi, YS., Kim, JCH., Lee, KS., et al. Analysis of female voiding dysfunction: a prospective, multicenter study. Int Urol Nephrol, 2013, 45, p. 989–994.

12. Chou, TP., Gorton, E., Stanton, SL., et al. Can uroflowmetry patterns in women be reliably interpreted? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 2000, 11, 3, p. 142–147.

13. Irwin, DE., Milsom, I., Hunskaar, S., et al. Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder and other lower urinary tract symptoms in five countries: results of the EPIC study. Eur Urol, 2006, 50, p. 1306–1315.

14. Jørgensen, JB., Colstrup, H., Frimodt-Møller, C. Uroflow in women: an overview and suggestions for the future. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 1998, 9, 1, p. 33–36.

15. Jørgensen, JB., Jacobsen, HL., Bagi, P., et al. Home uroflowmetry by means of the Da Capo home uroflowmeter. Eur Urol, 1998, 33, 1, p. 64–68.

16. Kočí, K. Ultrasonografie urogenitálního ústrojí: z pohledu urologa. Praha: Avicenum, 1989, s. 163.

17. Koiso, K., Nemoto, R., Ohtani, M. Urophonographic studies of benign prostatic hypertrophy. J Urol, 1991, 145, p. 1071–1077.

18. Koraitim, MM. The male urethral sphincter complex revisited: an anatomical concept and its physiological correlate. J Urol, 2008, 179, 5, p. 1683–1689.

19. Krčmář, M. Vyšetřovací metody v urogynekologii. In Urogynekologie. Praha: Galén, 2004, s. 33.

20. Krhut, J. Neurourologie. Praha: Galén, 2005, s. 26.

21. Kupelian, V., Rosen, RC., Link, CL., et al. Association of urological symptoms and chronic illness in men and women: contributions of symptom severity and duration-results from the BACH Survey. J Urol, 2009, 181, p. 694–700.

22. Kupelian, V., Wei, JT., O´Leary, MP., et al. Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms and effect on quality of life in a racially and ethnically diverse random sample: the Boston Area Community health (BACH) survey. Arch Intern Med, 2006, 166, p. 2381–2387.

23. Lane, SJ., Heddle, NM., Arnold, E., Walker, I. A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 2006, 6, p. 23.

24. Malykhina, AP., Wyndaele, JJ., Andersson, KE., et al. Do the urinary bladder and large bowel interact, in sickness or in health? Neurourol Urodyn, 2012, 31, 3, p. 352–358.

25. Mombelli, G., Picozzi, S., Messina, G., et al. Free uroflowmetry versus „Do-It-Yourself“ uroflowmetry in the assessment of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Int Urol Nephrol, 2014, 46, 10, p. 1915–1919.

26. Nitti, VW., Tu, LM., Gitlin, J. Diagnosing bladder outlet obstruction in women. J Urol, 1999, 161, 5, p. 1535–1540.

27. Peter, WP., Drake, WM. Jr. Uroflowmetric observation in gynaecologic patiens. JAMA 1958, 166, p. 721–724.

28. Wein, AJ., Rackley, RR. Overactive bladder: a better understanding of pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. J Urol, 2006, 175, suppl, p. 5–10.

29. Yoshimura, N., Chancellor, MB. Current and future pharmacological treatment for overactive bladder. J Urol, 2002, 168, 1897–1913.

30. Zmrhal, J., Dorňáková, P., Ščamborová, E. Uroflowmetrie. Metoda zapomenutá, či potřebná? Prakt Gyn, 14, 1, s. 54.

31. Zvara, P., Ursiny, M., Giebink, T., et al. Comparison of test-to-test variability in flow parameters recorded with a wireless-based acoustic systém with that of standard uroflowmetry. Int Urogynecol J, 2010, 22, suppl 2, p. 1105–1106.