Investigation of the Effect of Voiding Position on Uroflometric Parameters and Voiding Residue in Healthy Volunteers in Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad, Iran

Authors

1 . Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

3 General Practitioner, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Basic Sciences, School of Medicine, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad and MicroanatomyResearch Center, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Background & Aims: Uroflowmetry is a common procedure to examine the lower urinary tract system. Uroflowmetry results are affected by different factors. In this study, the effect of voiding position on uroflowmetric parameters and voiding residue were investigated in healthy subjects. Methods: This descriptive–analysis study was performed on 41 healthy volunteers with mean age of 33.22 ± 9.45 referred to Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad, Iran, in 2011. Nonprobability purposive sampling method was used in this study. The uroflowmetric tests were performed in the standing, sitting, and crouching positions for men and in the sitting and crouching positions for women. Post voiding residue (PVR) was measured using transabdominal ultrasound after voiding. Maximum flow rate (Qmax), average flow rate (Qave), voiding volume (VV), voiding time (VT) and PVR values were compared between voiding positions. SPSS software, paired t-test, and repeated measurement were used for data analysis. All P values less than 0.05 were considered as significant. Results: The differences between Qmax (P = 0.193 for men and P = 0.792 for women), Qave (P = 0.312 for men and P = 0.896 for women), and VV (P = 0.187 for men and P = 0.124 for women), and VT (P = 0.017) in different positions were not statistically significant. However, the lowest and highest mean post voiding residue in men (P = 0.001) were in the crouching and standing positions, respectively. Inwomen, mean post voiding residue (P = 0.039) was lower in crouching position than sitting position. Conclusion: In healthy subjects, voiding position does not affect Qmax, Qave, and VT. However it seems PVR was lower in the position they usually used.

Keywords


  1. Nitti VW. Urodynamic and video urodynamic evaluation of the lower urinary tract. In: McDougal W, Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick A, Partin AW, Peters C, et al. Editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011. p. 2010-9.
  2. Tavakkoli Tabassi K. The effect of voiding position on uroflowmetric parameters in patients who candidate for uroflowmetry with lower urinary track symptoms. J Babol Univ Med Sci 2014; 16(8): 7-12. [In Persian].
  3. Yazici CM, Turker P, Dogan C. Effect of voiding position on uroflowmetric parameters in healthy and obstructed male patients. Urol J 2013; 10(4): 1106-13.
  4. Choudhury S, Agarwal MM, Mandal AK, Mavuduru R, Mete UK, Kumar S, et al. 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.
  5. Gupta NP, Kumar A, Kumar R. Does position affect uroflowmetry parameters in women? Urol Int 2008; 80(1): 37-40.
  6. Aghamir SM, Mohseni M, Arasteh S. The effect of voiding position on uroflowmetry findings of healthy men and patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol J 2005; 2(4): 216-21.
  7. Unsal A, Cimentepe E. Voiding position does not affect uroflowmetric parameters and post-void residual urine volume in healthy volunteers. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2004; 38(6): 469-71.
  8. Amjadi M, Hajebrahimi S, Soleimanzadeh F. The effect of voiding position on uroflowmetric parameters in healthy young men. UroToday Int J 2011; 4(3): 1.
  9. El-Bahnasawy MS, Fadl FA. Uroflowmetric differences between standing and sitting positions for men used to void in the sitting position. Urology 2008; 71(3): 465-8.
  10. Junginger B, Baessler K, Sapsford R, Hodges PW. Effect of abdominal and pelvic floor tasks on muscle activity, abdominal pressure and bladder neck. Int Urogynecol J 2010; 21(1): 69-77.
  11. de Jong Y, Pinckaers JHFM, ten Brinck RM, Lycklama à Nijeholt AAB, Dekkers OM. Urinating standing versus sitting: position is of influence in men with prostate enlargement. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9(7): e101320.