Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Epidemiology, Evaluation & Medical Non-surgical Therapy (MP09)1 May 2024MP09-09 MOBILE APP-BASED VERSUS CONVENTIONAL UROFLOWMETRY: IS YOUR HOME TOILET THE NEW UROFLOWMETRY LAB? Shritosh Kumar and Manoj Kumar Shritosh KumarShritosh Kumar and Manoj KumarManoj Kumar View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008920.55771.18.09AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Mobile applications are now available for generating uroflowmetry reports based on the sound of urine flow hitting the toilet water. A single uroflowmetry test is commonly used for decision making in outpatient settings. However, voiding behavior including bladder volume affect the results and thus multiple measurements at home may provide a more realistic assessment for urologists. METHODS: Patients visiting urology outpatient department who were advised uroflowmetry during their evaluation underwent simultaneous recording of conventional (Laborie UrocapTM) and mobile-based app uroflowmetry (MenHealth®). Conventional uroflowmeter was filled with 100 mL water, set to zero and patients were asked to micturate directly in the container while trying to hit the water puddle to generate sound. Reports were generated for the same micturition by both methods. Data were compared in terms of peak flow, average flow, and voided volume. Female patients were excluded from the study. RESULTS: Initial few cases showed incomplete and highly variable results. Background noise elimination resulted in accurate measurements. Subsequently, 65 male patients were included. Median age was 47.2 years. On conventional uroflowmetry, the median Qmax, Qavg, Voided volume and voiding time were 11.4 mL/sec, 7.3 mL/sec, 255 mL and 54.6 seconds respectively. Similar parameters on mobile app were 11.9 mL/sec, 7.8 mL/sec, 288 mL and 51 seconds respectively. Good correlation was found for all four parameters in terms of Qmax (r=.85, p=.000), Qavg (r=.86, p=.000), voided volume (r=.92, p=.000), and voiding time (r=.95, p=.000). CONCLUSIONS: Mobile app-based uroflowmetry demonstrated comparable findings to conventional uroflowmetry. Quiet surrounding environment was needed to exclude background noise and perform the test with good accuracy. Mobile apps are easy to use and further validation is needed in various settings for future use. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e129 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Shritosh Kumar More articles by this author Manoj Kumar More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Kumar et al. (Mon,) studied this question.