Introduction: To investigate the accuracy of uroflowmetry with disposable QSingle compared to measurements with a home-based digital device and compared to a single clinical measurement. Patients and Methods: 60 men with lower urinary tract symptoms were included in a prospective, open-label, multicenter study. Uroflowmetry measurements were done using three devices/methods: single clinic-based method, followed by up to 12 measurements using the disposable home-based QSingle and up to 12 measurements using a home-based digital device. Subjective data on ease of use of QSingle and preference of patients was investigated and objective measures of Qmax and voided volume from the three devices were compared. Results: Mean Qmax values of 12, 13 and 16 ml/s were achieved with the QSingle device, standard clinic method, and digital device, respectively. Mean Qmax obtained with the QSingle device did not differ from that obtained with the clinic method. A significantly higher mean Qmax was recorded for the digital device. Mean voided volumes recorded with each device differed marginally. Handling capabilities of the QSingle device were considered good by all subjects. Conclusions: The accuracy of Qmax and voided volume mean measurements with QSingle was comparable to one standard clinic recording. QSingle offers a viable alternative to reduce the number of clinic visits and can be used by other caregivers.

Keywords:
Urologic diseases/physiopathology, Middle-aged, Male, Reproducibility of results, Urodynamics, Prostate, Hypertrophy
1.
Abrams PH: Prostatism and prostatectomy: the value of urine flow rate measurement in the preoperative assessment for operation. J Urol 1977;117:70–71.
2.
Feneley MR, Dunsmuir WD, Pearce J, Kirby RS: Reproducibility of uroflow measurement: experience during a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of doxazosin in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 1996;47:658–663.
3.
Sonke GS, Kiemeney LA, Verbeek AL, Kortmann BB, Debruyne FM, de la Rosette JJ: Low reproducibility of maximum urinary flow rate determined by portable flowmetry. Neurourol Urodyn 1999;18:183–191.
4.
Drach GW, Ignatoff J, Layton T: Peak urinary flow rate: observations in female subjects and comparison to male subjects. J Urol 1979;122:215–219.
5.
Blaivas JG: The bladder is an unreliable witness. Neurourol Urodyn 1996;15:443–445.
6.
Oelke M, Hofner K, Jonas U, de la Rosette JJ, Ubbink DT, Wijkstra H: Diagnostic accuracy of noninvasive tests to evaluate bladder outlet obstruction in men: detrusor wall thickness, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine, and prostate volume. Eur Urol 2007;52:827–834.
7.
Poulsen AL, Schou J, Puggaard L, Torp-Pedersen S, Nordling J: Prostatic enlargement, symptomatology and pressure/flow evaluation: interrelations in patients with symptomatic BPH. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1994;157:67–73.
8.
Reynard JM, Peters TJ, Lim C, Abrams P: The value of multiple free-flow studies in men with lower urinary tract symptoms. Br J Urol 1996;77:813–818.
9.
Reynard JM, Yang Q, Donovan JL, et al: The ICS-‘BPH’ Study: uroflowmetry, lower urinary tract symptoms and bladder outlet obstruction. Br J Urol 1998;82:619–623.
10.
Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, Emberton M, Gravas S, N’Dow J, Nordling J, de la Rosette J: Guidelines on conservative treatment of non-neurogenic male LUTS. European Association of Urology, 2010. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/BPH%202010.pdf.
11.
Stöhrer M, Blok B, Castro-Diaz D, Chartier-Kastler E, Del Popolo G, Kramer G, Pannek J, Radziszewski P, Wyndaele JJ: Guidelines on neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. European Association of Urology, 2010. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/Neurogenic%20LUTS%202010.pdf.
12.
Tekgül S, Riedmiller H, Gerharz E, Hoebeke P, Kocvara R, Nijman R, Radmayr C, Stein R: Guidelines on paediatric urology. European Association of Urology, 2010. http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/Paediatric%20Urology%202010.pdf.
13.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: 2010. The Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men. London, National Clinical Guideline Centre, The Royal College of Physicians, 2011.
14.
Agarwal P, Rosenberg ML: Neurological evaluation of urinary incontinence in the female patient. Neurologist 2003;9:110–117.
15.
Wolfs GG, Knottnerus JA, Van der Horst FG, Visser AP, Janknegt RA: Determinants of doctor consultation for micturition problems in an elderly male population. Eur Urol 1998;33:1–10.
16.
Boci R, Fall M, Walden M, Knutson T, Dahlstrand C: Home uroflowmetry: improved accuracy in outflow assessment. Neurourol Urodyn 1999;18:25–32.
17.
Jorgensen JB, Jacobsen HL, Bagi P, Hvarnes H, Colstrup H: Home uroflowmetry by means of the Da Capo home uroflowmeter. Eur Urol 1998;33:64–68.
18.
De la Rosette JJ, Witjes WP, Debruyne FM, Kersten PL, Wijkstra H: Improved reliability of uroflowmetry investigations: results of a portable home-based uroflowmetry study. Br J Urol 1996;78:385–390.
19.
Pel JJ, van Mastrigt R: Development of a low-cost flow meter to grade the maximum flow rate. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:48–54.
20.
Pridgeon S, Harding C, Newton D, Pickard R: Clinical evaluation of a simple uroflowmeter for categorization of maximum urinary flow rate. Indian J Urol 2007;23:114–118.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.