medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2018, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2018; 78 (2)

Uroflowmetric parameter versus anthropometric parameter determination in Mexican men with no urinary symptoms

Preciado-Estrella DA, Gómez-Sánchez J, Herrera-Muñoz J, López-Maguey R, Sánchez-Aquino U, Viana-Álvarez G

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 135-143
PDF size: 472.84 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the uroflowmetric parameters in healthy men with no urinary symptoms and associate them with anthropometric measurements to establish normality limits in Mexico.
Materials and Methods: A prospective, descriptive, and analytic study was conducted on men under 40 years of age with no urinary symptoms or instrumentation. Anthropometric parameters were measured and three uroflowmetry studies were carried out for each individual. Periodic calibration of the uroflowmeter (Mediwatch© disk) and other good urodynamic practices were performed to obtain more accurate results. The results were analyzed through descriptive statistics (measures of central tendency, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (contingency tables, χ2), to establish statistically significant associations.
Results: Seventy-seven men were included in the study with the following values expressed in means: age 25.9 years (SD 6.18), weight 78.9 kg (SD 14.4), height 172 cm (SD 6.3), BMI 26.8 kg/m2 (SD 4.64), abdominal circumference 93 cm (SD 11.8), Qmax 28.01 mL/sec (SD 8.12), voided volume 313 mL (DE 94.98), time 27.19 seconds (SD 7.6). The subgroup analysis, eliminating the interquartile range and comparing the more obese group versus the thinner group (BMI) produced a Qmax of 27.9 vs 31.03 (χ2 = -0.434, p ›0.05); the abdominal circumference comparison produced 28.8 vs 25.31 mL/sec for the thinner patients and the more obese patients, respectively (χ2 = 2.901, p ›0.05). There was a decrease of 1.68 mL/sec in the Qmax after a decade.
Conclusions: Mexican men have a flow rate of 28 mL/sec, with a decrease of 1.68 mL/sec for each decade of life. Even if overweight does not affect urine stream force, it has a tendency to be stronger in the obese population.


REFERENCES

  1. Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L. Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21(3):261-74.

  2. Agarwal MM. Manual of urodynamics, 1st Ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, 2014.

  3. Chancellor MB, Rivas DA, Mulholland SG. The Invention of Modern uroflowmeter by Willard M. Drake, Jr. at Jefferson Medical College. Urology 1998;51(4):671-4.

  4. Chang SJ, Chiang IN, Hsieh CH. Age- and Gender-specific nomograms for single and dual post-void residual urine in healthy children. Neurourol Urodyn 2013;32(7):1014-8.

  5. Caffarel J, Robson W, Pickard R. Flow measurements: can several ‘‘wrongs’’ make a ‘‘right’’? Neurourol Urodyn 2007;26(4):474-480.

  6. Addla SK, Marri RR, Daayana SL. Avoid cruising on the uroflowmeter: evaluation of cruising artifact on spinning disc flowmeters in an experimental setup. Neurourol Urodyn (2010);29(7)1301-5.

  7. Cindolo L, De Nunzio C, Sountoulides P. The influence of ejaculation and abstinence on urinary flow rates. Neurourol Urodyn 2011;30(8):1571-5.

  8. Zafer Aybek, Zafer Sinik, lbrahim Oguzulgen, Does digital rectal examination affect uroflowmetry measurements? Neurourol Urodyn 2003;22(2):138-41.

  9. Sonke GS, Kiemeney LA, Verbeek AL. Low reproducibility of maximum urinary flow rate determined by portable flowmetry. Neurourol Urodyn 1999;18(3):183-91.

  10. Schacterle RS, Sullivan MP, Yalla SV. Combinations of maximum urinary flow rate and American Urological Association symptom index that are more specific for identifying obstructive and non-obstructive prostatism. Neurourol Urodyn 1996;15(5):459-70.

  11. Shei-Dei Yang S, Eng-Tzu S, et al. Tzu Chi nomograms for uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine, and lower urinary tract function. Tzu Chi Med J 2014;26:10-14.

  12. Núñez TH, Lara BA. Física II: Un enfoque constructivista. 1ª ed. Ciudad de México, Peason, 2007.

  13. Arceo OR, Villeda SC, García-Mora A. Valores de referencia de uroflujometría e IPSS en una muestra de hombres mexicanos: estudio piloto. Rev Mex Urol 2010;70(Supl: 2):19-60.

  14. Roger R, Lorenzo L, et al. Correlation between uroflowmetry and a new visual pictogram in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms: Analogical uroflowmetry (ANUF). Eur Urol Suppl 2016;15(3);e99.

  15. Puthenveetil R et al, Implication of ultrasound bladder parameters on treatment response in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia under medical management, Asian J Urol 2015;2(4)233-237.

  16. Agarwal MM, Choudhury S, Mandal AK. Are Urine flowvolume nomograms developed on Caucasian men optimally applicable for Indian men? Need for appraisal of flow-volume relations in local population, Indian J Urol 2010;26(3):338-44.

  17. Bright E, Pearcy R, Abrams P. Ultrasound estimated bladder weight in men attending the uroflowmetry clinic, Neurourol Urodyn 2011;30(4):583-6.

  18. Choudhury S, Agarwal MM, Mandal AK. Which voiding position is associated with lowest flow rates in healthy adult men? role of natural voiding position. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29(3):413-7.

  19. Barry MJ, Fowler FK, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol 1992;148(5):1549-57.

  20. Haylen BT, Parys BT, Anyaegbunam WI. et al, Urine flow rates in male and female urodynamic patients compared with the Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 1990;65(5):483-7.

  21. Haylen BT, Ashby D, Sutherst JR, Maximum and average urine flow rates in normal male and female populations – the Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 1989;64(1):30-38.

  22. Thakur ND, Mulay AR, Satav VP. Uroflow nomogram for healthy, 15-40 year old Indian men. Indian J Urol 2016;32(4):293-295.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com