Development and construction of an open-platform, open-source low-cost portable uroflowmeter: The OpenFlow device

BACKGROUND

Uroflowmetry is useful to screen for and manage many voiding disorders. Home-based uroflowmetry might better represent the patient's true voiding pattern and be more widely adopted if an accurate low-cost portable device was available.

OBJECTIVE

Development and initial evaluation of an open-platform, open-source low-cost portable uroflowmeter.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed and built an uroflowmeter comprising of a load cell and digital memory card unit connected to a programmable microcontroller board mounted upon a 3D printed frame. It generated date-stamped tables which were processed and plotted. Twenty urologists were recruited to assess the device. Each participant received the equipment that was returned, along with a bladder diary, after at least 24 consecutive hours of homemade uroflowmetry recording. Additionally, were assessed with the International Prostatic Symptom Score (I-PSS) and Peeling diagram, whereas the device's ease of use, robustness, and portability were evaluated with a Likert-type questionnaire. Two experienced urodynamicists independently evaluated the tracings' quality rated with a 3° ordinal scale: (1) Interpretable without artifacts; (2) Interpretable with artifacts; (3) Uninterpretable.

RESULTS

Participants' median age was 36.6 years old, none having an I-PSS > 5 or Peeling > 2. Overall 138 voidings were recorded (77 daytime, 61 nightly episodes). The device's ease of use, robustness, and portability obtained maximum score in 80% of evaluations. Most (98%) of the tracings were considered interpretable. Limitations included its small study population and short monitoring times.

CONCLUSION

The construction of a cheap (<50 USD), accurate user-friendly portable uroflowmeter proved feasible, which could facilitate access to portable uroflowmetry.

Simultaneous uroflowmetry and urinalysis with single specimen - A prospective evaluation of automatic urine strip analyzer of ORUBA INALYS: Uroflowmetry-urinalysis combined device

Objective

To evaluate the consistency of the urinalysis results performed with the ORUBA INALYS device, (Oruba, Ankara, Turkey) which can perform urinalysis and uroflowmetry simultaneously, with the analysis results performed with the SYSMEX UC3500 automated urine chemistry analyzer (Sysmex, Kobe, Japan).

Material and methods

In this prospective study, urinalysis of 50 male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms were evaluated. The parameters of glucose, pH, urobilinogen, bilirubin and ketone, leukocyte, protein, and blood were measured with ORUBA INALYS, and the same urine specimens collected from ORUBA INALYS by a special setup were sent to the laboratory for urinalysis with Sysmex UC-3500 to assess the concordance of the results between two devices.

Results

Urinalysis results in ORUBA INALYS device in terms of glucose, pH, urobilinogen, bilirubin, and ketone parameters were shown to achieve 100% agreement within ±1 category with SYSMEX UC3500 whereas these values were slightly decreased to 88%, 96%, and 98% for leukocyte, protein, and blood, respectively. Among the calculable weighted kappa values for the test parameters, the highest value was found for glucose and followed by blood, pH, leukocyte, and specific gravity respectively.

Conclusion

Significant consistency of the urinalysis results obtained from ORUBA INALYS with those obtained from device SYSMEX UC3500 shows the reliability of the urinalysis performed with ORUBA INALYS. ORUBA INALYS could minimize costs and workload, provide time save and reduce plastic waste.

How can we maximize the diagnostic utility of uroflow?: ICI-RS 2017

AIMS

To gauge the current level of diagnostic utility of uroflowmetry and to suggest areas needing research to improve this.

METHODS

A summary of the debate held at the 2017 meeting of the International Consultation on Incontinence Research Society, with subsequent analysis by the authors.

RESULTS

Limited diagnostic sensitivity and specificity exist for maximum flow rates, multiple uroflow measurements, and flow-volume nomograms. There is a lack of clarity in flow rate curve shape description and uroflow time measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for research to combine uroflowmetry with other non-invasive indicators. Better standardizations of test technique, flow-volume nomograms, uroflow shape descriptions, and time measurements are required.