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.
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.