Comparison of Self-Conducted and Assistant-Supervised Uroflowmetry Methods

Objective This study aims to compare the results and patient satisfaction scores between uroflowmetry performed under the patient's control and assistant-supervised conventional uroflowmetry. Methods A total of 120 patients who had previous experience with uroflowmetry were included in the study. Patients were evaluated in two even groups of 60 patients each - those not receiving medical treatment (group 1) and those receiving medical treatment (group 2). Maximum flow rate (Qmax), average flow rate (Qave), voided volume, voiding time, post-void residual volume (PVR), and patient satisfaction survey scores were compared between the two separate uroflowmetry methods. Results There was a significant difference between assistant-supervised and self-conducted uroflowmetry in terms of Qmax, Qave, voiding time, and patient satisfaction scores. While comparing all patients, no significant difference was found in terms of PVR and voiding volume values. There was a significant difference in Qave, Qmax, PVR, and voiding time in both assistant-supervised and self-conducted uroflowmetry. As for voided volume, there was no significant difference between the groups in either procedure. When groups were evaluated within themselves, in group 1, there was a significant difference in voided volume, Qave, and PVR, while there was no significant difference in Qmax and voiding time. In Group 2, there was a significant difference in voided volume, Qave, and PVR, although there was no significant difference in Qmax and voiding time. Conclusion Maximum urine flow rate and mean urine flow rate measured by self-conducted uroflowmetry are higher than assistant-supervised (conventional) uroflowmetry, which can ensure patient privacy.