Open Access

ARTICLE

Recording urinary fl ow and lower urinary tract symptoms using sonourofl owmetry

Katarina Zvarova¹, Michal Ursiny¹, Timothy Giebink¹, Kathleen Liang², Jerry G. Blaivas³, Peter Zvara¹

1 Department of Surgery, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA
2 Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont College of Agriculture, Burlington, Vermont, USA
3 Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
Address correspondence to Dr. Peter Zvara, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine University of Vermont, D319 Given Building, 89 Beaumont Avenue, Burlington, VT 05405 USA

Canadian Journal of Urology 2011, 18(3), 5689-5694.

Abstract

Introduction: To assess the accuracy of sonouroflow (SUF), an at-home, wireless-based acoustic system for recording lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and urinary flow rate, and to compare test-to-test variability in flow parameters recorded using this new portable method with those obtained by conventional uroflowmetry.
Materials and methods: An initial pilot study evaluated the technical feasibility of the SUF system. Subsequently, test-to-test variability was compared between sonourograms (SUFm) and standard uroflowmetry recordings. Uroflowmetry tests were performed at the urology office at pre-set times. SUF tests were performed at home on a schedule in keeping with the subjects' normal habits.
Results: In the initial feasibility study, 94% of SUFm recordings obtained from male volunteers displayed regular bell-shaped flow curves comparable to those recorded by standard uroflowmetry; significant variability was noted among female volunteers. In the comparative study, the coefficient of variation for SUFm-derived values was significantly lower for voiding time (p < 0.001) and significantly higher for average flow rate (p = 0.009) than that obtained from standard uroflowmetry recordings; maximum flow rate and time to maximum flow were not significantly different between methods. Box-and-whisker plots showed reduced test-to-test variability in the SUFm dataset for voiding time, maximum flow rate and time to maximum flow rate in 62.5%, 43.75% and 56%, respectively, of study subjects.
Conclusions: The SUF system is easy to use and yields results comparable to those of standard uroflowmetry. Integration of recordings of LUTS with flow parameters and lower test-to-test variability suggest the potential of SUF for clinical applications.

---

Keywords

---