Uroflowmetry in healthy women: Development and validation of flow–volume and corrected flow–age nomograms

Abstract

These nomograms would help clinicians evaluate flow rates over a wide-range of voided volume as well as age, enabling effective screening of women for voiding dysfunction, and evaluating response to medical or surgical treatment.

Validation of a culturally compliant voiding platform for urodynamics in African vesicovaginal fistula patients

“…Figure 3 is an example uroflowmetry curve likely exemplifying some degree of detrusor impairment. Compared with reported mean cQmax of the patient population in the study used to develop the PGIMER nomogram [26], patients in our study had a significantly lower cQmax (0.89±0.46 vs 1.43±0.42, p= 0.01). The flow rates observed in these patients were significantly lower than the mean normal flow rates expected using both the Liverpool and PGIMER nomograms ( Table 3).…”

“…The KruskalWallis one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey test was used for nonparametric analysis. Additionally, the one-sample t test was used to determine statistical significance between the mean cQmax of patients in our study and that of a previously reported population of healthy Indian women [26]. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.…”

“…A spinning-disk uroflowmetry transducer and the Medtronic Duet Logic Urodynamic System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) were used to acquire the maximum flow rate (Qmax), average flow rate (Qave), time to maximum flow rate (TQmax), voiding time, flow time, and voided volume (VV). Because the medical charts of most patients generally showed records of lower VVs than those found in normal healthy women, and because the VV correlates positively with flow rate, we compared the patients' flow rates with the expected mean normal flow rates at the given VV using the following equations from the female Liverpool (Lv) nomogram [25] and the PGIMER (Pg) nomogram, which has been validated and derived from an Indian population [26]: Additionally, corrected Qmax (cQmax) was calculated as first described by Von Garrelts [27] using the following equation:…”

Voiding Dysfunction

“…The time duration in which the normal bladder should empty itself is also not clearly defi ned, making it diffi cult to apply the yardstick of "complete bladder emptying within a normal time span." Moreover, applicability of Western nomograms to Indian patients has pitfalls [ 5 ]. There are limitations to the ICS documentation for dysfunctional voiding [ 6 ].…”

Normal lower urinary tract assessment in women: I. Uroflowmetry and post-void residual, pad tests, and bladder diaries

“…Baraptre et al [34] evaluated 308 female volunteers by uroflowmetry. Mean VV was 290 ml, Q max was 23 ml/s, Q ave was 13 ml/s, and PVR was 3 ml.…”