Uroflowmetric analysis and derivation of nomograms for normal paediatric Indian population between 5 to 15 years of age

Uroflowmetry parameters in healthy children between 5 and 15 years old

“…In recent studies, it has been reported that UFM values of the age group of 11-15 years differ significantly when compared with the lower age groups, and therefore the children have been divided into age groups in terms of UFM results. 19,26,28,30,31,39 Our results were similar to other studies, and the Qmax and Qavg values in girls were significantly higher than in boys in both age groups. This finding has been related to the increase in VV with age and the proportionality of urine flow rate with increasing VV.…”

“…However, it is not appropriate to apply these nomograms to children, as bladder capacity and flow rate increase with age 15,20,21 Several studies have demonstrated that Qmax and Qavg are significantly higher in girls compared with boys. 9,19,20,26,28,30,31,38 Consistent with these findings, our study also revealed that the mean Qmax value in healthy girls aged 5-15 years was significantly higher than in boys. This difference can be attributed to the anatomical characteristics of girls, such as a shorter and wider urethra, which results in lower outlet resistance during voiding.…”

“…In Consequently, a standardized reference range for UFM in children according to age, as well as a lower limit for urine flow rates or VV, has not been precisely determined yet. 14,19,21,26,28,30,31,38 The fullness of the bladder, fluid intake, feeding method, and the specific device used for the test are other important parameters that may affect the test results. Moreover, nomograms developed for the adult population are often used to assess LUTD in children.…”

“…11,[13][14][15][19][20][21][23][24][25][26] The minimum VV required for UFM examination in children has not been established yet. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][19][20][21][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Although Qmax values differ between male and female children, 13,14,19,20,24,26,[28][29][30][31] most studies provide reference values in small and/or heterogeneous groups across various age ranges, disregarding gender. 10,11,15,21,23,25,27 Furthermore, uncertainties exist regarding bladder emptying methods, the number and types of UFMs used, the shape of the urine flow curves, privacy concerns during the test, limited studies on healthy children, and potential racial or regional differences in normal UFM ranges, all of which hinder the widespread use of UFM in pediatric pop...…”

“…10,11,15,21,23,25,27 Furthermore, uncertainties exist regarding bladder emptying methods, the number and types of UFMs used, the shape of the urine flow curves, privacy concerns during the test, limited studies on healthy children, and potential racial or regional differences in normal UFM ranges, all of which hinder the widespread use of UFM in pediatric populations. 10,11,[13][14][15]17,[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Because of these uncertainties, the best approach to popularize the use of UFM in the pediatric age group is to establish reference values of UFM for each country, which are determined by age and gender in healthy children. In our country, very few studies have aimed to specify normal UFM values in healthy children.…”